PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese and

English book reviews§
Hiroko Itakura a,*, Amy B.M. Tsui b
a
Department of English Language and Literature, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China
b
Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Evaluative language features prominently in academic discourse, especially in book
Received 7 September 2009 reviews. Previous studies have suggested that the use of criticism and its mitigation
Received in revised form 22 October 2010 devices may be culturally bound. However, so far, there has been no study which explicitly
Accepted 24 October 2010
compares the use of criticism in Japanese and English book reviews. This paper
investigates how criticism is managed in English and Japanese book reviews. An analysis of
Keywords:
a corpus of twenty English and twenty Japanese book reviews in the field of linguistics
Criticism
Academic discourse shows that while there are similarities, there are distinctive differences. At the global level,
Language of evaluation praise is more prominently used in English book reviews to establish solidarity and
Face rapport while apology and self-denigration are used in Japanese reviews. At the local level,
Mitigation devices ‘rhetorical questions’, ‘self-denigration’, ‘recasting problems as potential for future
Japanese culture research’ and ‘attributing problems to the next generation’ are used only in Japanese
reviews. The study explores the importance of taking into account both ethnic culture and
small cultures in interpreting empirical data from two languages.
ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Evaluative language features prominently in academic discourse. Writers commonly evaluate and comment on other
researchers’ academic contributions as they seek to claim authority and to establish the credibility of their own research
within their academic community. In addition, evaluative language plays a vital role in stimulating research and contributes
to the progression and refinement of scientific knowledge (Sniderman, 1999; Vandenbroucke and De Craen, 2001).
Evaluative language is especially important in academic book reviews, an important and unique sub-genre of academic
discourse (Hyland, 2004, 2009; Salager-Meyer and Alcaraz Ariza, 2004; Salager-Meyer et al., 2007). Hyland (2004) observes
that although all academic genres are evaluative, book reviews are most explicitly so as they convey public evaluation of the
author’s academic merits and standing by peers, and they indirectly influence the reputation of the author. So far, the most
comprehensive analysis of book reviews is Hyland’s (2004) work based on 160 book reviews collected from 28 academic
journals across different disciplines including science, the social sciences and humanities, all published in 1997. Hyland
investigated how the two key evaluative acts, ‘praise’ and ‘criticism’, are used in English book reviews.
While the primary function of a book review is evaluative, conventions that govern the use of evaluative language and
interpersonal relationships between reviewer, book author and other readers appear to be culture specific, both with respect
to disciplinary culture and national culture. For example, Hyland (2004) found that the extent to which reviewers employed

§
The article is an expanded version of the authors’ previous study (Itakura and Tsui, 2009).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +852 3411 7161; fax: +852 3411 7895.
E-mail addresses: Hirokoitakurahk@gmail.com, Hiroko@hkbu.edu.hk (H. Itakura), bmtsui@hkucc.hku.hk (A.B.M. Tsui).

0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

2 H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

praise and criticism, the areas they focused on, and their preferred terms of expression showed some disciplinary differences.
For example, evaluations in reviews in the so-called ‘‘soft’’ disciplines were found to be longer, more detailed and more
discursive. In addition, reviewers in these disciplines were found to be more critical, and praise tended to be more fulsome.
On the other hand, reviews written by writers in the so-called ‘‘hard’’ disciplines were found to be dominated by praise.
Hyland suggests that these differences are due to different disciplinary cultures, manifested in different ways of approaching
argument and knowledge and different roles of books as means of conveying new knowledge in different disciplines.
At the level of ethnic culture, Salager-Meyer and Alcaraz Ariza (2004), in their contrastive study of criticisms in medical
book reviews, found that French, English, and Spanish book reviewers used criticism differently in terms of frequency, level
of indirectness and use of mitigation devices. For example, Spanish book reviewers were found to make critical comments
most frequently. In addition, both Spanish and French reviewers often softened their criticism with a range of mitigation
devices, including conditional sentences and ‘emotionally-charged expressions’ such as ‘surprenant,’ (surprisingly) and
‘malheureusement’ (unfortunately) for French, and ‘desafortunadamente’ (unfortunately) and ‘lamentablemente’ (lamen-
tably) for Spanish. On the other hand, English reviewers were found to make direct criticisms with few mitigation devices.
Based upon the analysis of the mitigation devices used to soften criticism in these three languages, Salager-Meyer and
Alcaraz Ariza (2004:[1_TD$IF]168–169) conclude tha[3_TD$IF]t French book reviewers tend to adopt a more authoritative and expert voice,
Spanish book reviewers tend to use more sarcastic language, while English book reviewers tend to present criticisms as
personal opinions.
Contrastive analyses of evaluative language in other genres of academic discourse have also noted cultural variations
in linguistic devices and structures. However, divergent views have been expressed on such variations, particularly
with regard to Asian and Western cultures. For example, while some contrastive studies on academic writing have
shown that Asian writers can be as direct and critical as their Western counterparts, others have suggested that
indirectness is more prevalent among the former than the latter (see, for example, Scollon and Scollon, 1991, 1995;
Kong, 2005). Such previous studies suggest that forms of criticism and the linguistic devices used to minimize criticism
may be culturally bound and used to construct different kinds of interpersonal relationships appropriate to particular
cultural contexts.
The aim of this paper is to investigate how evaluation is conducted in different cultural contexts by focusing specifically
on criticisms in academic book reviews in English and Japanese in the field of linguistics. The paper applies the concept of
‘‘face’’ (Goffman, 1971) and the model of politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) to the analysis of
academic discourse in English and Japanese and investigates cultural variations in the way criticisms are managed.

2. Criticism and politeness strategies

A number of previous studies on criticism in written genres have drawn on the frameworks of politeness theory (Cherry,
1988; Hagge and Kostelnick, 1989; Myers, 1989; Johnson, 1992; Johnson and Roen, 1992; Hyland, 2004). In this study, we
draw on the model of politeness strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), specifically the central notion of
interaction as being inherently ‘‘face-threatening’’ and the need during interaction to preserve either positive face, that is, the
desire to be approved of, or negative face, that is, the desire to act without being imposed upon. We are however critical of
the assumption underlying the model that speakers systemically go through a number of interpretive steps to calculate the
weighting of a given face-threatening act before deciding on a particular politeness strategy (Watts, 2003).
As book reviews are inherently face-threatening, writers of reviews are often found to use strategies to maintain a
positive interpersonal relationship at the global and local levels. At the global level, the entire book review is potentially a
face-threatening act because the genre as a whole calls for criticism or identification of weaknesses in the book. Johnson
(1992) and Johnson and Roen (1992)[4_TD$ IF] have examined the use of praise as a strategy to negotiate interpersonal relationships
in peer review texts in English. They have shown that, at the global level, praise was often used in the opening sections to
create a socially appropriate solidarity context and to sustain the sense of involvement before criticism is offered in
subsequent sections. Similarly, praise was frequently used in the closing sections to reaffirm solidarity and affinity
between the reviewer and the author of the paper under review. Hyland (2004) has observed that using praise to open an
English book review is an effective way to mitigate subsequent criticisms as it forms a conventional basis for upcoming
critique. He has further pointed out that closing a book review with praise protects the positive face of the book author as it
helps to reaffirm solidarity by repairing the adverse effects of the review writer’s earlier criticisms. On the other hand, at the
local level, review texts contain local criticisms which point out particular problems of the book and which constitute face-
threatening acts (FTAs).
The studies cited above suggest that solidarity is highly valued in academic communities and praise is frequently used as
an effective positive politeness strategy in evaluating other academics’ contribution in English. However, the data used by
these studies are from English-speaking academic communities. In other communities, positive politeness strategies may
not be used to the same extent in evaluative genres and their realisations may be different. For example, it has been
suggested that negative politeness strategy is especially salient in Japanese cultural contexts (Brown and Levinson, 1987)
and modesty, formality, and restraint are frequently used as politeness strategies (Haugh, 2007; Leech, 2007; Matsumoto,
1988)[5_TD$IF].
Although not directly related to criticisms in the written review genre, Hiraga and Turner’s study (1996) is informative as
it has suggested ways in which giving and responding to criticisms in academic contexts may be influenced by different

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 3

concepts of face and role expectations held in different cultures. On the basis of analyses of tutorial sessions and discourse
completion tests in British and Japanese universities, the study has shown that, when giving criticisms, British tutors
attended to both the positive and the negative face of the students, whereas Japanese tutors did not show a strong tendency
to attend to the face needs of the students and tended to give more direct criticism. According to Hiraga and Turner (1996)[6_TD$IF],
this is because, in the British academic context, interpersonal relationships between the tutors and the students are more
equal and also because the students are expected to be capable of thinking critically and participating in academic discussion
with their tutors. On the other hand, in the Japanese context, hierarchical relationships between tutors and students are
taken for granted: Teachers are viewed as advisers or problem solvers, and students are outside the discourse community of
experts. According to Hiraga and Turner (1996)[7_TD$IF], direct criticisms do not therefore constitute rudeness in such a cultural
context. Their study suggests that, while it has often been frequently pointed out that Japanese is more indirect than English
(see Rose, 1996 and Tanaka, 1997 for a summary and discussion), criticisms in Japanese reviews may not necessarily be
mitigated more frequently than English ones. More empirical studies on criticisms in different contexts are needed to find
out whether Japanese reviews are more indirect than English reviews and to ascertain the contextual features that
contribute to the similarities and differences.

3. The study

There are to date few studies which explicitly focus on reviews of Japanese academic writing, an exception being Itakura
and Tsui (2009). The research undertaken here explores politeness strategies used in Japanese reviews and explores the
similarities and differences with English reviews.
Specifically, the questions addressed were:

1) How does the use of mitigated criticisms in Japanese academic book reviews compare with those in English academic
book reviews?
2) What kind of mitigation devices are used to soften criticisms in Japanese and English academic book reviews?
3) Are mitigating devices used more frequently in Japanese than in English reviews?
Through addressing these questions, we hope to explore cultural differences, if any, in politeness strategies and norms of
interpersonal relationships in English and Japanese.

3.1. Methodology

The data set for the present study consisted of two sub-corpora, both of which are book reviews in academic journals, one
in English and the other in Japanese. In order to attain comparability of the two sub-corpora, as far as possible, we tried to
ensure that the book reviews were in the same academic discipline, that the book authors were all well respected researchers
in the field, and that the book reviews were published within the same period of time (Connor and Moreno, 2005; Moreno,
2008).[9_TD$IF] The corpus for this study therefore consisted of book reviews in four linguistics journals, two in English, Language and
Linguistics, and two in Japanese, Nihongo no kenkyuu (Study of Japanese language) and Nihongo bunpou (Japanese Grammar).
These journals were chosen as they are regarded as reputable in their respective academic communities, and the book
reviews had been rigorously scrutinized for academic quality before they were accepted for publication. The reviewers in
both sub-corpora were experienced researchers in the academic discipline of linguistics. Twenty English and twenty
Japanese book reviews were selected from the period 2002–2007.1 The size of the sub-corpus is approximately 35,800 words
for English and 130,540 characters for Japanese.
Two additional criteria were used to select the book reviews. First, book reviews written by a single reviewer were chosen.
This was to eliminate stylistic differences between individual reviewers. Second, book reviews were on single-authored
books rather than on edited books involving multiple authors. This is because edited books and single-authored books are
likely to differ with respect to the spectrum of criticisms provided in book reviews.
The corpus was analysed at both global and local levels. For the global level, opening and closing sections were
analysed with respect to whether praise was used as a solidarity strategy to mitigate the face-threatening nature
of book reviews (Johnson, 1992; Johnson and Roen, 1992; Hyland, 2004; see the discussion above) in similar ways
in English and Japanese. The instances of praise in both sub-corpora were counted and analysed, as were other speech
acts that appeared to reduce the level of face-threat of the evaluative genre (e.g. ‘apology’ and ‘self-denigration’; see
below).
At the local level, the number and type of mitigation devices used to soften a critical comment were counted and
analysed. Though a critical comment may in theory be positive, in fact, most usages of this term refer to negative evaluations.
Thus, ‘criticism’, in the context of this study, is defined as negative evaluation of the work produced by the author. Instances
of ‘criticism’ in the twenty English and twenty Japanese book reviews were identified as an evaluative act that provided a
reviewer’s negative evaluation on some characteristic of the volume under review, such as content of the book, its
organisation, and usefulness to potential readership (Hyland, 2004). Most instances of criticism were identified on the basis

1
This follows Hyland’s study (2004) on book reviews, where 20 book reviews were collected to represent each academic discipline (e.g. applied
linguistics, electrical engineering, and philosophy).

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

4 H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

of lexico-grammatical features that conveyed the reviewer’s negative judgment of the book, while others were identified by
taking into account the culture and conventions which were associated with the evaluation of a particular genre (Martin,
2003; Shaw, 2004; see also Alcaraz Ariza, 2009:[1_TD$IF]52–54). For example, in the English sub-corpus, the following statement was
treated as an instance of criticism on the organization of the book under review: ‘For the purpose of applying the book’s
proposals to a typologically very different language, the chapters’ early location is inappropriate’. This assessment was
formed on the basis of the negative evaluation signalled by the world ‘inappropriate’. On the other hand, another example
found in the English sub-corpus contains instances of more implicit evaluation:

The progression from one chapter to the next can be rather arbitrary, as with Ch. 5.
The theoretical sections are very technically detailed, while the goal of the historical sections sometimes seems to be
simply to catalog the differences between stages of the languages.

While the first sentence could be seen as an explicit criticism on the basis of the negative evaluation of the
organization the book as ‘‘arbitrary’’, the second sentence conveys a criticism of the theoretical discussion as
‘‘technically detailed’’ as opposed to thought-provoking and insightful, and the description of the historical account as
just cataloguing, implying the lack of analytical quality, accentuated by the word ‘‘simply’’ (Martin, 2003:[13_TD$IF]172–173;
Shaw, 2004:[15_TD$ IF]129).
The criticisms identified in the twenty English and twenty Japanese book reviews were therefore categorised into
‘direct’ and ‘mitigated’. Mitigated criticisms were negative evaluations accompanied by linguistic devices which serve to
minimize face-threatening effects while direct criticisms were those that were not mitigated. Five categories of
mitigation devices were identified: three were drawn from Hyland’s (2004) analysis of criticisms in book reviews: (a)
‘praise-criticism pairs’ (b) ‘hedging’ and (c) ‘other attribution’. A fourth category, (d) ‘personal attribution’, was drawn
from Myers’ work (1989)2 and a fifth category, (e) ‘emotionally charged expressions’, was drawn from Myers (1989) and
Salager-Meyer and Alcaraz Ariza (2004). Instances which did not fall into any of the five categories were put into a sixth
category, ‘‘Others’’.
A ‘praise-criticism pair’ is a criticism prefaced by praise that serves to soften the face-threatening effect of the criticism.
An example from the corpus is ‘‘Despite its many useful features, there are certain gaps and weak areas. . .’’3 ‘Hedging’,
involving such items such as ‘could’, ‘possibly’ and ‘seems’, is employed to mitigate the face-threatening effect of critical
comments. ‘Personal attribution’ (such as ‘I think’ and ‘to my mind’), as pointed out by Myers (1989), mitigates the criticism
by specifying that it represents the writer’s personal opinion rather than being an objective quality of the book. It implies that
others may hold an alternative view which is equally valid. ‘Other attribution’ diffuses the criticism by shifting the agent of
the critical comments from the reviewer to other readers or by attributing the agent of the criticism to ‘others’ or to a generic
member of the research community. An example from the corpus is ‘It provides more technical detail than many linguists
will want’. ‘Emotionally charged expressions’ mitigate criticisms as they convey the reviewer’s emotional involvement and
solidarity with the reviewee (Myers, 1989; Salager-Meyer and Alcaraz Ariza, 2004). An example found in the corpus is
‘Unfortunately, no recordings are available for. . .’.
In the ensuing discussion, we present the mitigation devices found at the global level (i.e., opening and closing sections).
This will be followed by findings of the use of mitigation devices at the local level.

4. Findings

4.1. Mitigation devices at global level

The analysis of the English and Japanese sub-corpora shows that in openings and closings in book reviews in English,
praise was often made directly to reduce the face-threat of the book review as a genre, whereas in Japanese reviews, praise of
the author or the work under review is frequently given in tandem with the reviewers’ self-denigration and apology.

4.1.1. Openings
In the openings of book reviews, thirty instances of praise were found in the English and forty were found in the Japanese
book reviews. These uses appear to signal different perceptions of the genre and differing norms of interpersonal
relationships. In the openings in the English sub-corpus, praise tended to be used directly, for example:

Example 1
. . . was the first of the great engineers to lay out the field of acoustic phonetics, and this new collection of
his papers further documents his achievements. There is no doubt that he is a towering figure in the field. . .

2
Hyland (2004) refers to this category as ‘‘personal responsibility’’.
3
Mitigation can also take the form of ‘‘criticism-praise’’ where the positive evaluation serves a similar purpose. We are grateful to one of the reviewers for
pointing this out to us. This will be taken into account in future research.

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 5

This example includes three instances of praise of the author’s reputation in field, which refer to the author’s contribution
to and standing in the field, signaled by ‘great’, ‘achievements’ and ‘towering’. All three instances of praise were given directly
and assertively (e.g. ‘There is no doubt. . .’).
In the Japanese sub-corpus, speech acts other than praise were also found to reduce the face-threat of the book review. For
example, four instances of self-denigration and two instances of apology were found in the opening sections in the Japanese
sub-corpus. The two instances of apology found in the Japanese sub-corpus were used following self-denigrating
expressions. Example 2 below illustrates one such case:

[TD$INLE]Example 2

[Translation: The reviewer of this article is not sufficiently knowledgeable about . . ., which is adopted as an
analytical framework in this book. If my critique is off the point, I would like to ask for your forgiveness.]

Example 2 contains one instance of self-denigration, which is followed by an apology. That is, the reviewer presented
himself as possessing insufficient knowledge in the relevant field. He then apologised for his possibly off-the-point criticism.
Although the sub-corpus is small, these differences in the openings of book reviews indicate the possibility that the ways in
which English and Japanese academics set the tone in the opening sections and ameliorate the face-threat of up-coming
criticisms in the main sections might be influenced by different cultural conventions. Praise appears to be used more
frequently to create solidarity with the book author and other readers in English, whereas apology appears to be used more
frequently to project the humbleness of the reviewer in Japanese. As we will discuss below, apology was also often used in
the closing sections of the Japanese sub-corpus.

4.1.2. Closings
In the closing sections, 50 and 36 instances of praise were found in the English and Japanese sub-corpus, respectively.
These results suggest that praise was frequently used in both languages but more frequently in the English sub-corpus.
Closings in the English sub-corpus frequently consisted of direct and emphatic praise, which approved of the book, thereby
reaffirming solidarity with the author. For example,

Example 3
This book is clearly structured and relatively easy to read. The linguistic phenomena presented are extremely well
illustrated. . . . . . has written a monograph that will be central and basic for all future research...

By contrast, in Japanese reviews, praise was sometimes used in combination with self-denigration and four such
instances were found in the Japanese sub-corpus, For example,

Example
[TD$INLE] 4

[Translation: It was certainly a precious book for the reviewer, who has previously used similar types of documents
as the data base for this research, although I cannot reach within miles of the author.]

In this example, the reviewer praised the book, saying ‘it was certainly a precious [20_TD$IF]book’. His praise was given in
combination with a self-denigrating expression comparing his own academic calibre unfavourably with that of the book
author. In the Japanese closings, seven instances of ‘apology’ and eleven instances of self-denigration were used, frequently
in combination (see example 5 below).

4.1.2.1. Apology, self-denigration and virtual offence. It has been pointed out that apology is frequently used as a negative
politeness strategy to redress the face damage caused by the apologiser. Brown and Levinson (1987) observe that one form of
apology is to beg forgiveness to cancel the debt incurred by the face-threatening act. Similarly, Holmes (1990) maintains that
apology is an effective strategy to rebuild good interpersonal relationships between participants and to restore equilibrium
between the apologiser and the person offended. Most of the examples of apology found in the Japanese closings were
different in that they were given by the reviewers for their possible, and not actual, offence. The reviewers apologised that
their evaluation of the book in the preceding sections might have been inadequate. Another noticeable feature is that apology
was used in combination with self-denigration and forgiveness was begged profusely. Below is one such example:

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

6 H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Example
[TD$INLE] 5

[Translation: Lastly, I fear that, due to my shallow understanding, I might have presented worthless questions and
discussion but for this I can do nothing but beg for your kind forgiveness.]

In this example, the reviewer apologises for taking up the time of the book author and other readers with his ‘worthless
questions and discussion’. In addition to taking responsibility for harming the book author’s face, the review writer combines
an apology and a self-denigration, thereby excessively damaging his own positive face. The apology, moreover, is not offered
for any specific instance of criticism. The reviewer is begging forgiveness for ‘virtual’ (Goffman, 1971:[21_TD$IF]108) or hypothetical
offence that he might have committed by delivering his potentially inappropriate academic judgment and poor discussion.
Apologies for virtual offence may therefore indicate the importance in the Japanese review genre of reviewers
acknowledging their humility and self-reproach subsequent to their evaluation of others, and of showing their willingness to
withdraw their comments. Presenting such a self-less persona may be an effective strategy to maintain interpersonal
relationships in evaluating others in the Japanese review genre.

4.1.2.2. Formulaic apologies. In conveying apologies, formulaic expressions based upon kango ([TD$INLE] ; Sino-Chinese words or
compounds with Chinese origin) were commonly used in requesting forgiveness in the Japanese sub-corpus:

Example 6
[TD$INLE]

[Translation: Deep apologies for my arbitrary comments.]

Example 7
[TD$INLE]

[Translation: . . .I can do nothing but to beg for your kind forgiveness.]

Example 8
[TD$INLE]

[Translation: I would appreciate it if I could receive your kind forgiveness. . .]

Example 9
[TD$INLE]

[Translation: . . .I will appreciate it if I could receive your generous forgiveness for. . ..’]

Example 10
[TD$INLE]

[Translation:. . .I entirely beg for your generous forgiveness for . . .]

Expressions such as [TD$INLE] (‘deep apologies for my arbitrary comments’ in Example 6), [TD$INLE] (‘to beg for
your kind forgiveness’ in Example 7), and [TD$INLE] (‘to beg for your generous forgiveness’ in Example 10) are used by
the reviewers to apologise profusely for the potential offence of their critique of the books (see above).
These expressions of apology are highly formulaic and formal. In addition, in examples 8 and 9, honorific language was
used to indicate reviewers’ deference. [TD$INLE] [TD$INLE] (‘itadakereba’; if (I) could humbly receive (your forgiveness)) is
honorific language that enhances the status of the ‘other’ (i.e., the readers) by lowering the status of the self (i.e., the
reviewer). Using formulaic expressions of apology to evoke formality, modesty and deference in concluding critique on
books written by other academics appears to support in part previous studies on politeness which have suggested that
modesty are more salient in Japanese than in English (Haugh, 2007; Leech, 2007; Matsumoto, 1988).

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 7

Table 1
Distribution of mitigation devices for criticism in English and Japanese book reviews.

Type of mitigation devices

Praise-criticism Hedging Personal attribution Other-attribution Emotionally charged Others Total

expressions

English 35 (25%) 49 (35%) 15 (10.7%) 20 (14.3%) 13 (9.3%) 8 (5.7%) 140 (100%)

Japanese 16 (14%) 46 (40.4%) 8 (7%) 6 (5.3%) 8 (7%) 30 (26.3%) 114 (100%)

Table 2
Further mitigation devices to minimize face-threatening effects of criticism.4

Mitigation devices categorised initially as ‘others’ English Japanese

(a) Hypothetical statements 6 (4.1%) 5 (4.4%)

(b) Rhetorical questions 0 5 (4.4%)
(c) Establishment of inclusiveness 2 (1.4%) 2 (1.8%)
(d) Self-denigration 0 8 (7%)
(e) Recasting problems as potential for future research 0 8 (7%)
(f) Attributing problems to the next generation 0 2 (1.8%)

Total 8 30

4.2. Mitigating criticisms at local level

From the twenty English and twenty Japanese book reviews, 169 and 118 instances of ‘criticism’ were identified,
respectively. Of the 169 English examples, 61, approximately 36%, and 30 of the 118 Japanese criticisms, approximately
25.4%, were ‘direct’ or without any mitigation devices. Thus, there was a higher percentage of direct criticism in the English
book reviews than in the Japanese reviews as far as these two sub-corpora are concerned. What is perhaps more interesting is
the way mitigations of criticism were realised in each language.
The following is a break-down of the mitigation devices used to soften criticisms:
The figures in Table 1 show that sensitivity to the face-threatening effects of criticism was demonstrated in book reviews
in both languages. While in the English book reviews, there were higher percentages of criticism prefaced by praise and
‘other attribution’ than in the Japanese book reviews, the most notable difference was found in the category ‘‘Others’’,
suggesting that there are a number of instances which were not captured by the categories previously identified in the
research literature. This suggested in turn a need for further analysis to clarify additional categories. This analysis was
conducted and the results are shown in Table 2.
As can be seen from Table 2, two sub-categories were found in ‘Others’ in both the English and the Japanese sub-corpora,
namely (a) ‘hypothetical statements’ and (c) ‘establishing inclusiveness’. Four categories of mitigation devices were found only
in the Japanese sub-corpus: (b) ‘rhetorical questions’; (d) ‘self-denigration’, (e) ‘recasting problems as potential for future
research’ and (f) ‘attributing problems to the next generation’. These categories are presented in the following sections.

4.2.1. Further mitigation devices in English and Japanese reviews

4.2.1.1. Using hypothetical statements. In this category, criticism of the book is ameliorated through the use of a conditional
clause, which conveys a more desirable condition as counter-factual, as in the following examples.

Example 11
It would have been valuable if P had devoted close attention to. . .

Example 12
[TD$INLE]

[Translation: . . .it would have been very useful for the reader if the author had included an index at the end of the book.]

4.2.1.2. Establishing inclusiveness[2_TD$IF]. In the following example, the reviewer and the book author, F, are treated as being
included in the same research group and sharing the problem of lack of data. They are further treated as co-researchers who
strive to improve on the linguistic theory under discussion.

4
*Percentage is calculated in relation to the total number of instances of mitigations in English and Japanese (i.e., 140 and 114, respectively).

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

8 H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Example 13
I am sure F would agree that we need more data, . . . before we have a truly comprehensive theory of. . .

Below is an example from the Japanese sub-corpus:

Example 14

[TD$INLE]

[Translation: For far too long many researchers in this field, including the reviewer, have been using the key
concepts related to stative verbs often without defining them. Unfortunately, this weakness is observed in this book.]

In this example, the reviewer criticises the author for using concepts without defining them. However, the criticism is
softened as the reviewer aligns himself with other researchers who share the same problem and this serves to establish
inclusiveness between reviewer and book author.
As stated above, ‘using hypothetical statements’ and ‘establishing inclusiveness’ were found in both the English and the
Japanese data. Below we will discuss examples of mitigation devices that were found only in the Japanese sub-corpus.

4.2.2. Mitigating devices specific to Japanese reviews

4.2.2.1. Rhetorical questions. Rhetorical questions, or questions that leave their answers hanging in the air, may be used to
redress the FTA (Brown and Levinson, 1987:[23_TD$IF]223–224). Rhetorical questions found in the Japanese sub-corpus mitigate
criticism as they leave it to the reader to supply the negative evaluation (i.e., ‘Yes, the book has the problem’). By doing this,
rhetorical questions shift the source of criticism from the reviewer to the reader.

Example 15
[TD$INLE]

[Translation: ‘Doesn’t the way of thinking . . . lack objectivity and logic?’]

4.2.2.2. Self-denigration. Instances of self-denigration or expressions where the reviewer belittles his or her own intellectual
ability or academic calibre were found to soften criticism. This category consisted of three sub-types that play different but
related functions. The first function is to minimise the importance of the reviewer’s comments; the second attributes the
problem of the book to the reviewer’s own incompetence; and the third takes on responsibility for the shortcomings of the
book under review. All share a similar function of humbling the self.
Function of self-denigration (a): Minimising the importance of reviewer’s comments[25_TD$IF]
In the example below, the reviewer’s self-deprecating expressions serve as pre-modifiers of her criticism of the author’s
book:

Example 16

[TD$INLE]

[Translation: Lastly, although it is a superfluous remark, I wish to add one more comment . . .. In addition,
although it is another superfluous remark in addition to the previous superfluous comment, it would have been
very useful for the reader if the author had included an index at the end of the book.]

In this example, the reviewer’s self-denigration [TD$INLE] (literally meaning ‘adding legs to snakes’, i.e., superfluous remarks)
is used as a preface to subsequent criticism. By calling her own comments superfluous, the reviewer minimises their
importance, thereby reducing the face-threat to the book author.
Function of self-denigration (b): Attributing the problem of the book to reviewer’s incompetence

Example 17

[TD$INLE]

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 9

[Translation: Regarding. . .. it was not possible to interpret clearly entirely due to the reviewer’s lack of ability.]

In the example above, instead of directly criticising the book for its lack of clarity, the reviewer blames his own intellectual
limitations. Below is a similar example:

Example 18

[TD$INLE]

[Translation: It is difficult to see how many relevant examples are found. Unless . . ...is adopted, they won’t be
understood by inadequate brains such as mine.’]

In the example above, the book is criticised for its problematic presentation of examples. The criticism is softened by
‘nado’ in the subsequent sentence where the reviewer suggests an alternative method. ‘Nado’ is an expression used to
devalue the entity it accompanies (Shinmura, 1998). In the example above, it is used as ‘watashi (‘I’) nado (self-denigration)
no (possessive case) atama’ (brains), which means ‘brains that belong to a hopeless person such as me’. By devaluing his own
intellectual abilities, the reviewer represents the problem with the book as requiring some revisions that are not necessary
for the general readership but are only necessary for someone who suffers from intellectual deficiency such as the reviewer
himself.
Function of self-denigration (c): Taking on responsibility for the shortcomings of the book[26_TD$IF]
The third function of self-denigration used in Japanese book reviews was to present the weaknesses of the book under
review as something the reviewer himself needs to address and yet has not been able to:

Example 19

[TD$INLE]

[Translation: There is no perfection in scholarship. Muroyama lexicology is no exception. It goes without saying
that it leaves room for improvement. However, I will raise some questions below as problems that I, as reviewer,
have been reflecting on backwards and forwards within the existing paradigm without being able to propose a
new one, and need to address, rather than as requests to the author.]

In this example, the book reviewer could be regarded as criticising the book author by pointing out that the book needs
improvement and that he will raise some questions as problems. First, the reviewer generalises the problems that he finds to
wider scholarship5 (‘‘There is no perfection in scholarship’’). Second, the reviewer positions himself, not the book author, as
the one who needs but has not been able to address these questions. He denigrates himself as a researcher who has been
constrained by his own state of knowledge and unable to achieve a breakthrough. By shifting the criticism from the book
author to the reviewer himself, the face-threatening effect is minimized.

4.2.2.3. Recasting problems as potential for future research. The third category of mitigation devices found only in the Japanese
reviews can be seen in instances where the reviewer’s criticism of the book was softened by stating expectations for the
author’s future development or recasting problems as potential for future research. Below are some examples.

Example 20
[TD$INLE]
[Translation: (The problem is) difficulty of understanding the concept. I would like to wish for future development
of the research. . .]

5
The authors are grateful to one of the reviewers for pointing out that generalisation should be also counted as a type of mitigation device. This will be
taken into account in future research.

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

10 H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Example
[TD$INLE] 21

[Translation: However, even though there are some unresolved problems in the book, this nonetheless means
that research in this field has the potential for advancing our knowledge . . . I pray that seeds of each theme
planted in the present book will bloom into a big flower in the future.]

In example 20, a weakness of the book is presented as solvable by future research. In example 21, the reviewer points out
that unresolved problems remain in the book. The criticism, however, is alleviated by the reviewer’s suggestion that the
research has potential for pushing the boundaries of knowledge. By saying that each theme in the book will blossom into a
big flower, the reviewer is projecting a bright future for the research, hence minimizing the face-threatening effect of his
criticism. The criticism appears to be further lessened as the reviewer ‘prays’ ([TD$INLE] ) for future development, thereby
projecting a positive future for the research.

4.2.2.4. Attribution of problems to the next generation[27_TD$IF]. In the previous section, we pointed out that a statement of expectations
for future development or improvement redresses the criticism. Along similar lines, examples were also found in which the
reviewer mitigated his criticism by delegating the task of addressing the problems to the future generation:

Example
[TD$INLE] 22

[Translation: However, although some questions and requests remain, they must be ‘homework’, which is given
to the next generation by the book author who has provided an in-depth insight into the essence of verbs.]

In this example, the reviewer suggests that there are problems that the book does not fully address. However, he mitigates
his criticism by saying that these problems could be dealt with by the next generation, hence implying the complex nature of
the problems. He further mitigates his criticism by presenting the problems as ‘given by the author’, implying that the author
is fully aware of the problems, and praising the author for providing ‘an in-depth insight’. It is noteworthy that attribution of
the problems as tasks for future generations links the present and next generations as holding shared responsibility for
developing research in the relevant field.
The following example also shows these links between generations:

Example 23
[TD$INLE]

[Translation: This (i.e., the need for the design of good quality questionnaires for the purpose of conducting
research on dialects in Japan) has been argued for a number of years now. However, the grave reality is that no
action has been taken. For an advancement of research, pioneers need to make results, including their trial and
error, public, and juniors need to appreciate them before they go forward.]

Although only a limited number of instances of ‘attribution of problems to the next generation’ were found in the present
sub-corpus, these examples suggest that intergenerational links in the Japanese academia may be highly valued.

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 11

5. Discussion

The findings outlined above suggest that book reviewers writing in English and those writing in Japanese used certain
common types of mitigation devices to ameliorate criticisms. In both sub-corpora, hedging and ‘praise-criticism’ pairs were
frequently used and they constituted more than 50% of the mitigation devices found in each sub-corpus. Both English and
Japanese reviewers appeared to mitigate criticisms in order to show respect for and to maintain collegiality with the book
author. However, there were also some differences in the ways criticisms were mitigated. Below we will discuss some of the
main findings from the present study in light of the current discussion in the research literature on different notions of
culture. We will explore whether the notion of broad ethnic culture or ‘small culture’ (Holliday, 1999; Holliday et al., 2004),
or both, can be usefully applied to interpret findings from the present study.
There has been a considerable amount of discussion on the notion of culture and its relationship to communication
patterns. For example, national or ethnic culture is considered to play a major role in influencing members’ communication
patterns (e.g. Clyne, 1994, 1998; Hofstede, 2001). Drawing on large scale surveys, Hofstede (2001) suggests that members of
a given national cultural group hold a set of core values in certain key aspects of life including relationships between the
individual and authority and with groups. Different value systems within each culture are believed to influence members’
linguistic and non-linguistic behaviours. However, Hofstede (2001)[28_TD$IF] cautions that differences are not absolute but rather
point to general tendencies. Similarly, Clyne (1998) has suggested that cultural value systems consist of a relative emphasis
on the individual or on the group, relative power distance, the relative importance of harmony and conflict avoidance.
According to Clyne, cultural value systems play a central role in determining intercultural variation in discourse features, for
example, the use of indirect speech acts, downgraders (or mitigation devices), and positive and negative politeness. Mey
(2004:[29_TD$IF]42) suggests that the relative ‘emphasis based on establishing and keeping ‘‘harmony’’, typical for Japanese society’
should be added to the list.
However, the notion of national or ethnic culture has been problematised and heavily criticised as overgeneralisation
(Holliday, 1999, 2009; Holliday et al., 2004). For example, Holliday (1999) and Holliday et al. (2004)[30_TD$IF] argue that the
assumption of the existence of common cultural values that determine members’ behaviours and communication style is
‘essentialist’ and ‘reductionist’, leading to cultural stereotyping. As an alternative to national or ethnic culture, these authors
propose the notion of ‘small culture’, as opposed to ‘large culture’ which refers to ethnic or national culture. According to
Holliday (1999), ‘small culture’ refers to social groupings that are cohesive and rooted in members’ shared activities and
understandings. A particular form of discourse is formed within a small group to regulate thought, behaviour and expression
among the group members. Applied linguistics circles and other academic communities are given as examples of such small
cultures. While Holliday (1999) cautions against the essentialist view that ethnic culture determines members’ behaviour,
he acknowledges the relevance of national culture as a means of interpreting the behaviour of members within small
cultures. Holliday (1999)[31_TD$IF] suggests that cultural residues from national or ethnic experiences are brought into the formation
of small groups. With regard to the present study, the reviewers of the four journals may be thought of as participating in the
activities of ‘small cultures’ in the sense that they were engaged in the common activity of reviewing for relevant linguistics
journals. Although the reviewers were not necessarily members of the academic organisations that published the relevant
journals,6 they were nonetheless likely to orient themselves to the readership and the conventions of the journals when they
wrote their reviews.
Below we will explore how these two different approaches to the notion of culture could be invoked to explain the more
frequent use of mitigated criticism, apology and self-denigration in the Japanese data set than in the English one.

5.1. Mitigated criticism

On the one hand, the more frequent use of mitigated criticism found in the Japanese data set supports findings from
previous empirical studies which have suggested that Japanese language is more indirect than English, possibly because of
different cultural values held within each cultural context, including the notion of harmony and how to achieve it (Hofstede,
2001). On the other hand, it is also possible to interpret the findings as related to small cultures, in particular, as deriving
from different social and historical backgrounds of the review genre in English and Japanese academic communities. Hyland
(2004) points out that book reviews have been a part of the academic landscape in the English-speaking world for almost
2000 years and their evolution as a modern genre began in the mid-17th century. The history of academic book reviews as an
established genre appears to be shorter in the Japanese academic community. According to Tanizawa (2008:[32_TD$IF]111–112),
Tosaka (a Japanese critic) played a primary role in establishing book reviews as a cultural activity in the early 20th century.
Tosaka (1937 [1967]) emphasised the importance of book reviews as a critical genre where reviewers offered their critique of
the book and the cultural significance of the book author’s thoughts, views and research findings. He lamented that book
reviews were not as well-established or well-recognised in Japan as in the West.
Given the longer tradition, English reviewers may be more familiar and comfortable with criticising work produced by
other academics. In fact, criticism can be seen as having a positive meaning in English (Janet Holmes[34_TD$IF], personal

6
While Language adopts a membership system, reviewers do not have to be a member. Linguistics does not adopt a membership system. Similarly,
Nihongo no bunpou adopts a membership system but reviewers do not have to be members. Nihongo no kenkyu does not provide any information about the
process of assigning reviewers, except that it is decided by the editorial board.

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

12 H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

communication). ‘Critical’ reviews which include negative evaluations appear to be more explicitly encouraged in the
English journals examined. For example, the guidelines for submitting book reviews in Language states:

We encourage reviews that are critical in the true sense of the term, providing a well-supported discussion of the merits
and deficits of a book, and we will never refuse to publish a well-supported negative review. . .. (authors’ emphasis)

Unlike Language, the other English journal, Linguistics, does not give any explicit statement about book reviews. However,
in response to our question ‘‘Do you have any areas of concerns that you pay particular attention to before you publish book
reviews in the journal?’’, an assistant review editor responded that ‘‘The review should be a critical one’’ (authors’ emphasis).
Thus, critical evaluation seems to be clearly expected in the two English journals. The two Japanese journals, however, do not
contain any published guidelines for book reviewers. In response to our enquiry with regard to whether they had any
guidelines for submitting book reviews, both journals gave a negative reply.
The shorter history of book reviews as a critical genre in Japan and the absence of clear expectations that reviewers be
critical of other academics’ work in the Japanese journals may account for the more frequent use of mitigated criticisms in
the present data set. Reviewers might have felt more uncomfortable with direct criticism of other academic’s work as,
without clear expectations of critical book reviews, direct criticism may pose a stronger face-threat.
In addition, there may be different concepts as to what constitutes a cohesive and harmonious academic community and
how it can be maintained. For example, the book review editorial policy of Language stipulates that reviewers are welcome to
write negative reviews but they are encouraged to maintain a community of scholars by sending critical reviews to authors
before their publication:

‘‘. . .we will never refuse to publish a well-supported negative review. But we do want the readership of Language to be a
community of scholars, and in a community, the neighborly thing to do is to circulate reviews to authors.’’

On the basis of information available from published editorial policies and response to personal enquiries (see above),
criticism is explicitly encouraged, or deemed necessary, for advancement of knowledge in English academia, as long as it is
given appropriately. However, no such information is available from Japanese journals. It would be interesting to further
investigate perceptions of criticisms in relation to the manufacture of knowledge and preferred strategies to maintain group
harmony for Japanese and English academics. For this, collaboration with researchers, review editors and review writers
would be indispensable.

5.2. Apology and self-denigration

The use of apologies and self-denigrations found in the Japanese data set in the present study is consistent with previous
empirical studies that have shown that Japanese speakers tended to apologise more frequently than English speakers (e.g.
Ide, 1998[36_TD$IF]) and with politeness research that has suggested the saliency of modesty in Japanese (Haugh, 2007; Leech, 2007;
Matsumoto, 1988). In addition, it is also possible to interpret the use of those speech acts as derived from individual writers’
choices, rather than from shared cultural values. However, in the view of an informant from one of the Japanese journals (a
main board member), apologies and self-denigrations are used in some but not all Japanese journals, and frequency of use
has decreased over the past 20–30 years. It is thus possible that the use of formulaic apologies combined with self-
denigration may be shared with other Japanese journals but this may be used less and less because of the complex interplay
between large cultures and small cultures. Future studies on a larger scale would be needed to investigate the use of apology
and self-denigration in other Japanese journals from different academic disciplines and also from English journals, to explore
whether the use of these speech acts is related to ethnic culture, to journals from specific academic sub-disciplines, or to an
individual writer’s choice, dissociated from shared cultural values (see Connor, 2004; Mey, 2004 for a discussion on whether
culture can be dissociated from shared cultural values).

6. Conclusion

The present study aimed to analyse rhetorical strategies for providing criticisms in English and Japanese academic book
reviews. It aimed to ascertain whether criticisms by Japanese book reviewers are more often mitigated and whether the
existing framework for analysing mitigation devices proposed for English could be applied to the Japanese data to the same
extent.
The study has provided some supportive evidence from an academic review context for previous studies that Japanese is
more indirect. In addition, it has shown that certain mitigation devices which have been proposed in previous studies in
relation to English academic writing were also found in a Japanese sub-corpus. However, it has shown that certain uses of
mitigation devices are found only in the Japanese sub-corpus. While praise was prominently used in English book reviews to
create solidarity to open and close evaluation on others’ books, in Japanese reviews, apology and self-denigration are used in
addition to praise. In order to ameliorate instances of criticism, ‘apology’, ‘self-denigration’, rhetorical questions’, ‘recasting
problems as potential for future research’ and ‘attributing problems to the next generation’ were also used only in Japanese
reviews.

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx 13

The present study has attempted to apply the notion of small cultures as well as large or broad cultures in interpreting
empirical data involving different languages and has explored the importance of taking both approaches in interpreting
empirical data from different languages and cultures. Its findings concur with previous studies on cultural influences on
politeness strategies by suggesting that more frequent use of mitigated criticisms in the Japanese book reviews might be
related to the prevalence of a negative politeness strategy and cultural values such as modesty, humbleness and selflessness.
On the other hand, the present study has shown the importance of taking into account the specific social and historical
background of the genre, the presence or absence of editorial policies regarding book reviews, and the process of assigning
reviewers in order to interpret different linguistic patterns in different languages. It appeared that the longer history of book
reviews as a critical genre, explicit encouragement of critical comments in English book reviews, and possibly more positive
attitudes towards criticising other academics’ books as a way to manufacture knowledge in the relevant field may account
for a less frequent use of mitigated criticism. However, findings from the present study need to be supported by future
studies on a larger scale encompassing book reviews from different academic sub disciplines and using an ethnographic
approach. This would include interviews with individual writers as to the extent to which English speakers and Japanese
speakers hold different cultural values in different contexts, their socialisation processes and educational practices regarding
critical thinking. In addition, it is crucial that close collaboration between researchers, book review editors, and review
writers will be needed to examine the validity of research findings presented in the present study.

Acknowledgement[38_TD$IF]s

The authors are grateful to Janet Holmes and two anonymous reviewers for their numerous insightful comments on the
earlier draft of the paper, and to Constance Ellwood and Hans Ladegaard for many helpful suggestions for improvements of
the paper. All weaknesses in this paper are the authors’.

References

Alcaraz Ariza, Marıa Ángeles, 2009. Complimenting others: the case of English-written medical book reviews. Fachsprache 1–2, 50–65.
Brown, Penelope, Levinson, Stephen, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cherry, Roger, 1988. Politeness in written persuasion. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 63–81.
Clyne, Michael, 1994. Intercultural Communication at Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Clyne, Michael, 1998. Discourse in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural contexts. In: Jacob, L. Mey (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Elsevier, Oxford,
pp. 244–252.
Connor, Ulla, 2004. Intercultural rhetoric research: beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 3, 291–304.
Connor, Ulla M., Moreno, Ana I., 2005. Tertium comparationis: a vital component incontrastive research methodology . In: Bruthiaux, P., Atkinson, D.,
Egginton, W.G., Grabe, W., Ramanathan, V. (Eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan. Multilingual Matters,
Clevendon, England, pp. 153–167.
Goffman, Erving, 1971. Relations in Public: Micro Studies of the Public Order. Penguin, Hammondsworth.
Hagge, John, Kostelnick, Charles, 1989. Linguistic politeness in professional prose. Written Communication 6 (3), 312–339.
Haugh, Michael, 2007. Emic conceptualisations of (im) politeness and face in Japanese: Implications for the discoursive negotiation of second language
learner identities. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 657–680., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number.
Hiraga, Masako K., Turner, J.M., 1996. Differing perceptions of face in British and Japanese academic settings. Language Sciences 18 (3–4), 605–627.
Hofstede, Geert, 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Holliday, Adrian, 1999. Small cultures. Applied Linguistics 20 (2), 237–264.
Holliday, Adrian, 2009. The role of culture in English language education: key challenges. Language and Intercultural Communication 9 (3), 144–155.
Holliday, Adrian, Hyde, Martin, Kullman, John, 2004. Intercultural Communication. An Advanced Resource Book. Routledge, London.
Holmes, Janet, 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society 19, 155–199.
Hyland, Ken, 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI (First published by Pearson
Education Limited, Longman, 2000).
Hyland, Ken, 2009. Academic Discourse. Continuum, London.
Ide, Risako, 1998. ‘Sorry for your kindness’: Japanese interactional ritual in public discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 28, 509–529.
Itakura, Hiroko, Tsui, Amy B.M., 2009. Criticisms in English and Japanese in academic writing. In: Turner, Ken P., Fraser, Bruce (Eds.), Studies in Pragmatics:
Vol. 6: Language in Life, and a Life in Language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift. Emerald, Bingley, pp. 193–202.
Johnson, Donna M., 1992. Compliments and politeness in peer-review texts. Applied Linguistics 13 (1), 51–71.
Johnson, Donna M., Roen, Duane H., 1992. Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: gender variation. Language in Society 21, 27–57.
Kong, C.C. Kenneth, 2005. Linguistic resources as evaluators in English and Chinese research articles. Multilingua 24, 275–308.
Leech, G., 2007. Politeness: is there an East–West divide? Journal of Politeness Research 3, 167–206.
Martin, Jim R., 2003. Introduction. Text 23 (2), 171–181.
Matsumoto, Yoshiko, 1988. Reexamination of the universality of face: politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12, 403–426.
Mey, J.L., 2004. Between culture and pragmatics: Scylla and Charybdis? The precarious condition of intercultural pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 1/1,
27–48.
Moreno, Ana I., 2008. The importance of comparing comparable corpora in cross-cultural studies. In: Connor, U., Nagelhout, E., Rozycki, W. (Eds.),
Contrastive Rhetoric: Reaching to Intercultural Rhetoric. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 25–41.
Myers, Greg, 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics 10, 1–35.
Rose, K.R., 1996. American English, Japanese, and directness: more than stereotypes. JALT Journal 18, 67–80.
Salager-Meyer, Françoise, Alcaraz Ariza, Marıa Ángeles, 2004. Negative appraisals in academic book reviews: a cross-linguistic approach. In: Candlin,
C., Gotti, M. (Eds.), Intercultural Aspects of Specialized Communication. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 149–172.
Salager-Meyer, Françoise, Alcaraz Ariza, Marıa Ángeles, Pabón Berbesı, Maryelis, 2007. Collegiality, critique and the construction of scientific argumentation
in medical book reviews: a diachronic approach. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (10), 1758–1774.
Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzanne, 1991. Topic confusion in English-Asian discourse. World Englishes 10 (2), 113–125.
Scollon, Ron, Scollon, Suzanne, 1995. Intercultural Communication. A Discourse Approach. Blackwell, Oxford.
Shaw, Philip, 2004. How do we recognise implicit evaluation in academic book reviews? In: Del Lungo Camiciotti, G., Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.), Academic
Discourse: Linguistic Insights into Evaluation. Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 121–140.

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023
PRAGMA-3317; No of Pages 14

14 H. Itakura, A.B.M. Tsui / Journal of Pragmatics xxx (2010) xxx–xxx

Shinmura, Izuru, 1998. Koujien, 5th edition. Iwanami, Tokyo.

Sniderman, Allan D., 1999. Clinical trials, consensus conferences, and clinical practice. The Lancet 354 (9175), 327–330.
Tanaka, Hiroko, 1997. Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation. A Study in Grammar and Interaction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Tanizawa, Eiichi, 2008. Ningentsuu (Experts on People). Shincho sha, Tokyo.
Tosaka, Jun, 1967. Tosaka Jun Zenshuu (The Complete Works of Tosaka Jun), vol. 5. Keisou shobou, Tokyo.
Vandenbroucke, Jan P., De Craen, Anton J.J., 2001. Alternative medicine: a ‘‘mirror image’’ for scientific reasoning in conventional medicine. Annals of
Internal Medicine 135, 507–513.
Watts, Richard J., 2003. Politeness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hiroko Itakura is an Assistant Professor in Department of English Language and Literature at Hong Kong Baptist University. Her research interest includes
discourse analysis, pragmatics, and language and gender. Her previous research has been published in journals including Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development, Journal of Pragmatics, Language, Culture and Curriculum, Language in Society, and System.

Amy Bik May Tsui is Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Vice-President of The University of Hong Kong. She concurrently holds the position of Chair Professor in the Faculty
of Education. She obtained her PhD in Linguistics in 1986 at The University of Birmingham, UK. She serves on the Advisory and Editorial Boards of a number of
international refereed journals, and has published ten books and numerous articles in the areas of teacher education, classroom discourse, discourse analysis, and
language policy. Her most recent book is Learning in School-University Partnership: Sociocultural Perspectives (2009) published by Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Please cite this article in press as: Itakura H, Tsui ABM. Evaluation in academic discourse: Managing criticism in Japanese
and English book reviews, Journal of Pragmatics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.023