BOJANA PETRI

Scholarly criticism in a small academic community: A diachronic study of boo re!ie"s in the oldest Serbian scholarly #ournal$

$% Introduction
As &hiloso&hers and sociolo'ists of science (e%'%) *uhn $+,-. /atour $+012 and a&&lied lin'uists (e%'%) Ba3erman $+00. 4yland 5666. 7art8n97art8n : Bur'ess 566-. Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Pab;n Berbes8 5661. Sala'er97eyer 56$62 ha!e sho"n) disa'reement and conflict are dri!in' forces in the de!elo&ment of scholarshi&) ma in' scholarly criticism a cornerstone of academic discourse% <riticism is &er!asi!e in scholarly "ritin' re'ardless of the 'enre) disci&line) lan'ua'e and national academic culture. ho"e!er) it !aries considerably across these &arameters% Studies of criticism in different 'enres) such as abstracts (7art8n97art8n : Bur'ess 566-2) research articles (Bur'ess : =a'an 56652) and boo re!ie"s (hereafter: BR2 (4yland 5666. 7oreno : Su>re3 5660b. Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Pab;n Berbes8 56612 as "ell as com&arati!e studies of
$

This research "as conducted than s to the Research Incenti!e ?rant) @e&artment of /an'ua'e and /in'uistics) Ani!ersity of EsseB% I also "ish to than the British Academy for enablin' me to &resent a !ersion of this &a&er at the American Association for A&&lied /in'uistics conference in Atlanta) ?eor'ia) in 56$6% Than s are also due to the editors of this !olume and Ni'el 4ar"ood for their useful comments on earlier drafts of this cha&ter%

criticism in different 'enres (Sala'er97eyer : Alcara3 Ari3a 566C) and Sala'er97eyer : Alcara3 Ari3a) this !olume2 sho" that criticism tends to be more direct and &ersonal in 'enres such as editorials and BRs) "hose main function is to critically eBamine an issue or scholarly "or ) "hile it is more hed'ed and indirect in research articles) "here e!aluation of other scholarsD "or hel&s "riters create a research s&ace for their o"n contribution (S"ales $++62% <riticism also !aries across disci&lines% As 4ylandDs (56662 study of criticism in research articles from ei'ht different disci&lines sho"s) social science scholars tend to be more critical than scholars in hard sciences% @ifferent national academic cultures also ha!e their &referred "ays of eB&ressin' scholarly criticism% =or instance) in a com&arison of criticism in research article abstracts in En'lish and S&anish in &honetics and &sycholo'y) 7art8n97art8n and Bur'ess (566-2 found differences not only in the freEuency of criticism) "ith abstracts in En'lish containin' more instances of criticism than those "ritten in S&anish) but also in the manner of its eB&ression) "ith criticism in En'lish tendin' to be im&ersonal and indirect) in contrast to the &ersonal and direct criticism in S&anish abstracts% Similar findin's resulted from ?iannoniDs study (566F2 of criticism in the discussion section of lin'uistics research articles in Italian and En'lish% @us3a ($++12 also found lo"er freEuencies of criticism in Polish academic discourse in com&arison "ith En'lish) but unli e S&anish and Italian) Polish criticism tended to be more indirect in com&arison to criticism in En'lish% Sala'er97eyer and Alcara3 Ari3aDs (566-2 com&arison of criticism (or ne'ati!e a&&raisal) as the authors refer to it2 in En'lish) =rench and S&anish medical BRs re!ealed a number of culturally based differences) such as the use of sarcasm) humour and irony in S&anish criticism and the tendency of =rench criticism to be &ersonal% Addin' another dimension) diachronic studies of scholarly criticism) such as a series of studies by Sala'er97eyer and collea'ues) ha!e focussed on chan'es in the freEuency) &ositions) le!el of directness and tar'ets of scholarly criticism in different national and disci&linary academic communities o!er time% This body of "or su''ests that "hile some chan'es are shared amon' different communities) others !ary from one community to another% =or instance) in a study com&arin' criticism in En'lish) =rench and

S&anish medical articles bet"een $+C6 and $++F) Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a and Gambrano (566C2 found that) o!erall) articles in =rench and S&anish contained more criticism than articles in En'lish) and that =rench and S&anish criticism "as more often eB&ressed directly% 4o"e!er) the diachronic &ers&ecti!e of the study sho"ed that =rench and S&anish criticism de!elo&ed differently o!er time) "ith S&anish criticism mo!in' to"ards the more hed'ed eB&ression of criticism similar to that in En'lish) "hile =rench criticism did not under'o such a chan'e% In another study) "hich eBamined criticism in medical BRs "ritten in =rench #ournals in the last decades of the $+th and 56th centuries) Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a and Pab;n Berbes8 (56612 found an increase in the numbers of uncritical BRs in the last decade of the 56th century in =rench) "hich is certainly not the case "ith BRs in En'lish (4yland 56662% The same study) ho"e!er) found a &arallel de!elo&ment in criticism in =rench and S&anish BRs (Sala'er97eyer : Alcara3 Ari3a 566-2 in terms of the tar'ets of criticism (i%e%) as&ects of the boo criticised) such as style2) "hich !ary across historical &eriods in both academic cultures% Such differences need to be inter&reted in li'ht of the lar'er socio9cultural factors im&actin' on the academic community and its discourses% This body of research ins&ired the &resent study of scholarly criticism in Serbian academic discourse) "hich has not been eB&lored from this &ers&ecti!e so far% The e!olution of Serbian scholarly criticism "ill be traced throu'h the analysis of a sam&le of BRs) a 'enre e!aluati!e by definition% As BRs in!ol!e Ha direct) &ersonal) &ublic and often critical encounter "ith a &articular teBtI (Sala'er9 7eyer) Ari3a Alcara3 : Pab;n Berbes8 5661:$11$2) they re&resent a fertile 'round for a study of criticism and the !arious strate'ies used to soften it% In terms of the historical de!elo&ment of the 'enre and the role of criticism in it) diachronic studies re&orted in 4yland (56662 and Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Pab;n Berbes8 (56612 indicate that the &rimary function of the first BRs in the mid9se!enteenth century "as to describe the content of ne" boo s% As titles &roliferated) BRs 'radually e!ol!ed into an e!aluati!e 'enre more concerned "ith discussion and e!aluation of content% This study "ill establish "hether the same tra#ectory is found in BRs in Serbian% Research has also found that criticism 'enerally occurs less

freEuently than &raise in contem&orary BRs) althou'h in some disci&lines) such as &hiloso&hy and sociolo'y (4yland 56662) the o&&osite seems to be the norm% Jhile &raise tends to focus on the 'lobal as&ects of the "or re!ie"ed) criticism tends to tar'et s&ecific issues (4yland 5666. 7oreno : Su>re3 5660a) 5660b2% In terms of its &osition in the BR) criticism is ty&ically clustered in the body of the teBt) and "hile it is rarely found in final &ositions in En'lish BRs (4yland 56662) this is not the case "ith =rench BRs (Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Pab;n Berbes8 56612% <riticism is also often miti'ated by rhetorical strate'ies that maintain colle'iality amon' scholars) such as hed'es (4yland) 56662) a feature that has been studied in relation to &oliteness in academic "ritin' (7yers $+0+. Johnson $++52) and "hich is &articularly im&ortant in a 'enre that is Hmore face9threatenin' KLM than the research &a&er 'enreI (Sala'er9 7eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Pab;n Berbes8 5661: $1,02% All of these &arameters of criticism) i%e%) freEuency) tar'ets) &osition) and miti'ation strate'ies) "ill be in!esti'ated in a cor&us of Serbian academic BRs% It is &articularly interestin' to study criticism in a small academic community) such as Serbian) "here many academic con!entions) includin' those 'o!ernin' eB&ressions of criticism) may be affected by the si3e of the national academic community (@us3a $++1. 7oreno : Su>re3 5660a. /orNs San3 566+. Sha" : Oassile!a 566+2) as scholars are li ely to no" each other &ersonally% In diachronic studies in!ol!in' a sin'le lan'ua'e) teBts can be sam&led from a !ariety of #ournals in the same disci&line from different historical &eriods) as in Sala'er97eyerDs ($+++2 study of medical discourse in En'lish) based on teBts from C- American and British #ournals. or they may come from a sin'le #ournal) such as Ba3ermanDs ($+002 study of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, At insonDs ($++52 study of medical research "ritin' in the Edinburgh Medical Journal or Sha"Ds (566-2 study of BRs in the /ondon Economic Journal. The &resent study focuses on a sin'le humanities #ournal) Letopis Matice Srpske (/7S2) the nnals of Matica Srpska, the oldest continuin' scholarly #ournal in the Serbian lan'ua'e% Jith only short &eriods of interru&tions in &ublication since its establishment in $05- ($0CF9$0C,) $0-09$0-+) and durin' JJI and JJII2) the /7S offers an eBcellent o&&ortunity

to in!esti'ate chan'es in Serbian scholarly discourse o!er time% The aim of the study) then) is to trace the e!olution of Serbian scholarly criticism by com&arin' criticism in BRs &ublished in the /7S durin' three historical &eriods) i%e%) $+669$+6+) $+F69$+F+) and 56669566+% 7ore s&ecifically) the study "ill determine "hether there are any chan'es in the follo"in': i2 the freEuency of criticism) ii2 the &osition of criticism "ithin the BR) iii2 the &ro&ortion of miti'ated !s% unmiti'ated instances of criticism) i!2 miti'ation strate'ies) and !2 the issues tar'eted% I "ill also eBamine "hether the eB&ression of criticism !aries accordin' to the nationality of the author of the boo under re!ie" (hereafter: author2) i%e%) "hether boo s by local and forei'n authors are critiEued differently%

5% 4istorical bac 'round

!.". The #ournal The /7S "as founded in $05- in Buda&est) then the Austrian (4absbur'2 Em&ire) by the intellectual elite of the Serbian ethnic minority% Its aim "as to inform the 'ro"in' Serbian middle class in Austria and else"here of the latest de!elo&ments in Serbian and Sla!ic studies% Such a conce&tion) common to the &eriodicals in <entral Euro&e at the time of national a"a enin' (Po'aPni $+1,2) led to a broad re&resentation of different disci&lines "ithin the humanities) &articularly history and literature but also &hiloso&hy) ethno'ra&hy and la") "ith a unifyin' focus on Sla!ic andQor Serbian to&ics% The #ournal has s&ecialised in studies of literature and literary criticism) althou'h teBts relatin' to broader areas "ithin the humanities remain "ithin its sco&e until today% Initially an annual &ublication) the /7S has 'radually de!elo&ed into a monthly #ournal (Euarterly from $006) bi9monthly from $+6$) and monthly from $+$62% Its centre of &ublication mo!ed to No!i Sad in $0,-) then in Austro9 4un'ary) today in Serbia% Its status has also !aried throu'hout history% Accordin' to the latest cate'orisation of #ournals by the Serbian

7inistry of Science and Technolo'ical @e!elo&ment) it is classified as a scholarly #ournal but not as a leadin' national #ournal (7inistry of Science and Technolo'ical @e!elo&ment 56$62% !.!. The emergence of book re$ie%s in the LMS The first BRs emer'e on the &a'es of the /7S) albeit s&oradically) in the $0C6s% There are t"o ty&es of teBts that can be considered as antecedents to the BR: short biblio'ra&hical notes and lon'er analyses) "hich echoes Sala'er97eyerDs (56$62 findin's about $+th century medical BRs in En'lish% Biblio'ra&hic notes consist of a fe" lines &ro!idin' basic information about the boo Ds content) ty&ically in a neutral manner% They sometimes include 'eneral e!aluati!e comments or eB&ressions of &ersonal attitude) such as HJe salute this &ublication "ith 'reat enthusiasm5I or HJe than the author for this fine "or I% The other ty&e of early BR "as the so9called RrecensioD) a lon' and detailed analysis of a boo ) often &ro!idin' a &oint9by9&oint analysis) "ith citations from the "or follo"ed by the re!ie"erDs comment% Such teBts are not de!oid of criticism. on the contrary) the criticism is often harsh) &ersonal and e!en sarcastic) as in the follo"in' t"o eBam&les from $0FC: ($2 Pr!e rePi) o#e u samom delu nala3imo) su: KLM% Oidim li #a to dobroS Ta ni#e mo'uTe) da se ta o Uto na&isati i Utam&ati moVeW The first %ords %e find in the %ork are& 'cited sentence(. )o * see this %ell+ *t cannot be true that something like this can be %ritten and published, (52 ?% KautorM ni#e o&et s!o#e roXene oPi u&otrebio% On #e neUto ne'de Pitao) dru'o 3a&amtio) a treTe sada na&isao% Mr 'author-s name( did not use his o%n eyes. .e read something some%here, remembered something else, and has no% %ritten something completely different.
5

All translations from Serbian to En'lish are mine%

Sala'er97eyer (56$62 also found that criticism in $+th century medical BRs in En'lish tended to be &ersonal) direct and &ro!ocati!e% In his boo about the history of Serbian literary criticism) Yi! o!iT ($+F12 states that the first half of the $+th century "as mar ed by criticism that often bordered on &ersonal attac % This &ro!o ed a debate on the role of criticism) in "hich t"o sides can be identified: some held that criticism should be &ositi!e and su&&orti!e in order to hel& the youn' national literature 'ro" and reach the ran s of more de!elo&ed nations) "hile others thou'ht that) "ithout bein' fran and if necessary ne'ati!e) criticism cannot &erform its role in hel&in' indi!idual authors and national scholarshi& as a "hole to im&ro!e% Accordin' to Yi! o!iT ($+F12) it is only in the $0F6s that criticism rooted in the &rinci&les of literary theory emer'es% Althou'h Yi! o!iT is &rimarily concerned "ith literary criticism) this &oint is rele!ant to the discussion of academic criticism in BRs as "ell) since the terms RliteraryD and RliteratureD in the $+th century "ere understood more broadly as any &ublished "or ) includin' both literary and academic "or s (Tartal#a $+1,2% Althou'h interestin') this &eriod "as not included in the &resent study since BRs do not become a re'ular feature of the #ournal until the $016s% E!en then) due to the small number of !olumes) the $+th century as a "hole does not &ro!ide a sufficiently lar'e number of BRs for the &ur&oses of this com&arati!e study% !./. 0$er$ie% of the three historical periods BRs "ere sam&led from three ten9year &eriods) fifty years a&art: $+669$+6+) $+F69$+F+ and 56669566+% This &eriodisation "as moti!ated by methodolo'ical concerns to sam&le teBts systematically) in re'ular inter!als lon' enou'h to ca&ture &ossible chan'es% EEually im&ortantly) ho"e!er) it ta es into account !arious eBternal factors that may ha!e im&acted on the nature of the data) such as the interru&tions or reduced intensity in &ublication in certain &eriods and chan'es in borders and ideolo'ical orientations% The resultin' &eriodisation) co!erin' the &re9JJI &eriod) the &ost9JJII &eriod) and the &eriod after the brea 9u& of Zu'osla!ia) enables a contrasti!e

study of three historically !ery different &eriods in Serbian history) "hich had an im&ortant influence on the academic community% !./.". Period & "1223"121 In the first decade of the 56th century the cultural and scholarly &roduction in the Serbian lan'ua'e is centred both in Austro94un'ary and in Serbia) "hich 'ained inde&endence in $010. ho"e!er) the dominance be'ins to 'ra!itate to"ards Serbia) "here ma#or national institutions of scholarshi& are established (7ilisa!ac 56662) such as the Serbian Royal Academy for science and arts ($00,2 and the Ani!ersity of Bel'rade ($+6F2% In this &eriod) the /7S is a #ournal for discussion of contem&orary social issues) "ith &articular em&hasis on literature) literary and historical studies% One of its editors at the time describes its readershi& as educated non9eB&erts) more interested in readin' "or s that synthesise scientific achie!ements than ori'inal research studies% Amon' the re'ular features of the #ournal) BRs ha!e a &rominent role) "ith a rather lar'e section at the bac of the #ournal) "hich is di!ided into sub9sections by disci&line (literature) history) &hilolo'y) theolo'y) and emer'in' disci&lines such as &eda'o'y2% Each issue brin's a do3en or so BRs) &resentin' boo s "ritten by <3ech) <roatian) ?erman) 4un'arian) =rench) Romanian) Russian and Serbian authors) in a !ariety of lan'ua'es% =or the first time) the /7S &ublishes t"o re!ie"s of the same "or in the same issue (7ilisa!ac 56662) "hich su''ests that di!ersity of &ers&ecti!es has editorial su&&ort% Indi!idual BRs do not ha!e &ro&er titles. rather) titles of the boo s re!ie"ed ser!e as titles of BRs% The full names of re!ie"ers are not &ro!ided. only their initials are 'i!en% This is standard &ractice at the time in BRs in En'lish as "ell (Sala'er97eyer 56$62% !./.!. Period 4& "1523"151 In the $+F6s the orientation of the #ournal chan'es considerably as it no" aims to become a re'ional research9oriented literary #ournal% The #ournal is no lon'er concerned "ith RSerbianD to&ics only) but ado&ts a multicultural &ers&ecti!e) focusin' on the literary &roduction of !arious ethnic 'rou&s li!in' in the northern re'ion of Serbia

(Oo#!odina2 and) more 'enerally) of Zu'osla!ia as a "hole% Another im&ortant chan'e refers to the ideolo'ical orientation: as 7arBist a&&roaches are no" &referred in literary theory) "or s that do not adhere to 7arBism ris bein' fiercely criticised% The BR section continues to be a re'ular feature) althou'h) as in the &re!ious &eriod) ty&o'ra&hically se&arated from the rest of the #ournal i%e%) &rinted in columns and in smaller font% The sub9sections of the &re!ious &eriod no" disa&&ear) &ossibly due to a more homo'eneous disci&linary focus of the #ournal in this &eriod% The number of re!ie"ers) "hose names are no" &ro!ided in full) 'ro"s% !././. Period 6& !2223!221 After a &eriod of turbulent &olitical chan'es durin' the brea 9u& of Zu'osla!ia) the literary community for "hich the /7S caters shrin s due to both chan'es in the borders and due to the un&recedented brain drain durin' the $++6s and 5666s% Today) the /7S defines itself as Ha si'nificant factor of national) scientific and cultural life of the Serbian &eo&leI and stresses its focus on the national cultural &roduction Hre'ardless of the old and ne" bordersI (Letopis Matice Srpske) n%d%2% This focus on the national) "hile attractin' one 'rou& of scholars) has made other &otential contributors and readers shun it at a time of stron' di!isions on the issue of national identity and nationalism% In this &eriod the BR section is an inte'ral &art of the #ournal) ty&o'ra&hically undifferentiated from other sections% BRs are 'i!en titles (e%'%) HTo"ards a &oetics of a de9centrin' 'enreI2) follo"ed by the biblio'ra&hic details of the boo under re!ie"%

C% <or&us and analysis

Thirty BRsC "ere randomly selected from the /7S from each of the three &eriods% Only re!ie"s about a sin'le boo "ere ta en into account% The resultin' cor&us consists of +6 BRs) totallin' $$6)C50
C

Titles are a!ailable u&on reEuest from b&etric[esseB%ac%u %

$6

runnin' "ords% As can be seen from Table $) the three sub9cor&ora "ere not eEual in si3e since the BRs increased considerably in len'th o!er time) "ith a ty&ical BR in the 5666s almost t"ice as lon' as a BR in the $+66s% Oariation in len'th "ill be ta en into account%
Period A ($+669 $+6+2 5,)+$5 0+1%11 510 9 $F+1 Period B ($+F69 $+F+2 C5)F+6 $60,%+C 5+$ 9 5F5$ Period < (56669 566+2 F6)05, $,+-%5 ,65 \ C00+ Total

Total number of "ords A!era'e len'th of BR Ran'e

$$6)C50 $55F%01 510 9 C00+

Table $% @escri&tion of the cor&us

Only BRs about academic boo s "ere selected) "hile those re!ie"in' literary "or s "ere eBcluded from analysis% The boo s re!ie"ed are &rimarily concerned "ith literary studies (literary criticism) literary theory) history of literature2) "ith BRs of boo s in this disci&line accountin' for ,$] of the cor&us (,C] in &eriods A and <) and F1] in &eriod B2% 4o"e!er) due to the broad humanities focus of the #ournal) the cor&us also includes BRs of "or s from other humanities) most notably history (56]2 and &hiloso&hy (+]2% <riticism is defined in this study as disa'reement or ne'ati!e e!aluation of any as&ect of the boo under re!ie" or its author% Instances "here issues eBternal to the boo under re!ie" andQor its author (e%'%) other authorsQboo s or the conteBt2 are criticised "ere eBcluded from analysis% <riticism is identified as a semantic unit focusin' on a sin'le as&ect of the boo (follo"in' 4yland 5666) and Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Pab;n Berbes8 56612) "hich may be realised as a sin'le "ord) a &hrase or a clause% The follo"in' eBam&les "ere all coded as containin' one instance of criticism since they all refer to a sin'le as&ect of the boo under re!ie" (the letter in &arentheses refers to the &eriod co!ered2: (C2 L &rema Kautoro!omM) moVda &omalo nate'nutom miUl#en#uL(<$12 7according to 'the author-s( perhaps some%hat far3fetched

$$
opinion7 86"9: T!rdn#a da KLM ni#e niUta dru'o do obiPna retors a fi'ura liUena s!a o' on retno' sadrVa#a% (<,2 The statement that '7( is nothing but a simple rhetorical figure de$oid of any concrete content. 86;: Ona su 3a nas od s&oredno' 3naPa#a) a mo'la su doTi u &rimedbama is&od te staL (B52 They are of marginal importance for us and could ha$e been listed in the footnotes 7 84!:

(-2

(F2

Instances of criticism "ere located in teBts manually and coded in terms of the follo"in': i2 the &osition of the criticism in the teBt (i%e%) initial) middle) final &ara'ra&h) final sentence2) ii2 "hether it "as miti'ated or not (i%e%) "hether the criticism "as softened by usin' a miti'ation strate'y or eB&ressed directly2 iii2 if miti'ated) "hat ty&e of miti'ation "as used i!2 the tar'et of the criticism% 7iti'ation strate'ies (&oint iii2 "ere classified usin' a modified !ersion of 4ylandDs taBonomy (56662) "hich lists hed'es) &raise9 criticism &airs) &ersonal res&onsibility) other attribution) metadiscoursal brac etin' and limited &raise% 4ed'es include lin'uistic de!ices that "ea en ne'ati!e e!aluation) such as e&istemic modals (e%'%) may2 and a&&roBimators (e%'%) some"hat2% Praise9 criticism &air is a rhetorical strate'y consistin' of &ro!idin' &raise &rior to criticism) thus softenin' its force% Personal res&onsibility refers to instances "here the boo Ds shortcomin's are &resented as the re!ie"erDs &ersonal o&inion rather than as an ob#ecti!ely determined fault or a "idely shared o&inion% Other attribution similarly reduces the stren'th of criticism by attributin' it to others) most commonly the reader% 7etadiscoursal brac etin' refers to eB&licit si'nallin' of criticism) "hich distances the re!ie"er from the ne'ati!e e!aluation eB&ressed by introducin' a different !oice from the rest of the teBt% =inally) limited &raise refers to indirect eB&ression of criticism !ia &ositi!e e!aluation offerin' less than "hat the reader eB&ects) i%e%) &raise is limited to mar'inal as&ects of the boo thus im&lyin'

$5

criticism of its more rele!ant as&ects% This classification "as eB&anded to include t"o additional strate'ies found in the cor&us of the &resent study) "hich I term eu&hemistic criticism and #ustification for the shortcomin' on behalf of the author% /i e limited &raise) eu&hemistic criticism is an indirect strate'y that relies on the readerDs inference by eB&loitin' ?ricean im&licature% In contrast to limited &raise) ho"e!er) eu&hemistic criticism does not contain e!aluation but relies on descri&ti!e leBis) as in the eBam&le in Table 5) "hose ne'ati!e e!aluati!e force only becomes a&&arent !ia inference (for other ty&es of im&lied criticism) "hich ha!e not been addressed here) see Sha" 566-2% Pro!idin' a #ustification on behalf of the author offers an eBcuse for the authorDs o!ersi'ht or the "or Ds shortcomin' and thus lessens the authorDs res&onsibility for it% The follo"in' Table illustrates the taBonomy of miti'ation strate'ies used in the study "ith eBam&les from the cor&us:

$C
Ta oXe) utisa #e da #e sadrVa# mo'ao biti &roUiren &re'ledom literatureL (<$02 *t is also an impression that the content could ha$e been broadened by an o$er$ie% of the literature7 86"<: I3!oXen#e n#e'o!o !eoma #e 3animl#i!o) ali na ne im mestima ne mno'o ubedl#i!o% (AF2 .is reasoning is $ery interesting, but in some places not entirely con$incing. 8 5: Pa i ti &odaci oli o smo mo'li !ideti nisu u!e taPni% (B52 E$en those data, as far as %e could see, are not al%ays correct. 84!: LPitalac Te #o# !eT od &r!ih strana sta!l#ati i us&utne 3amer e% (B$F2 7the reader %ill also be making incidental critical remarks about 'the book( already from the first pages 84"5: Ali n#i'a ima i osetnih mana% (BF2 4ut the book also has noticeable shortcomings. 845: L dobro Te doTi s!ima onima o#i budu 3nali da se n#om ritiP i oriste% (B02 7'the book( %ill be useful to all those %ho kno% ho% to use it critically. 84<: =usnote na strani B date su na neuobiPa#en naPin% (B$02 The footnotes on page = are presented in an unusual fashion. 84"<: LduVan sam da s renem &aVn#u na i3!esne ne#asnosti u n#ima Koba!eUten#ima i3 n#i'eM) o#e su se) s!a a o) ao &o'reU e &era) &ot rale &iscu% (B$02 7it is my duty to point to certain unclear points in 'the information pro$ided in the book(, %hich ha$e certainly crept into the author-s te=t as slips of the pen. 84"<:

4ed'in'

Praise \ criticism Pair

Jriter res&onsibility

Other attribution

7etadiscoursal brac etin' /imited &raise

Eu&hemistic criticism Justification of the shortcomin'

Table 5% TaBonomy of miti'ation strate'ies (ada&ted from 4yland 56662

Tar'ets of criticism (&oint i!2 "ere classified accordin' to a modified !ersion of 4ylandDs (56662 taBonomy of cate'ories of e!aluation) "hich di!ides them into 'eneral content) s&ecific content) style) readershi&) teBt) author) and &ublishin'% The cate'ory of translationQtranslator "as added to this list) as it is &articularly rele!ant to small academic communities) "hich rely to a lar'e eBtent on

$-

translations of "or s from other lan'ua'es% It is im&ortant to treat translation9related issues as a se&arate cate'ory of e!aluation since a translation of a boo may be criticised e!en "hen the ori'inal is &raised) and !ice !ersa% Sala'er97eyer and Alcara3 Ari3a (566-: $,F2 also found a number of criticisms tar'etin' translation9related issues in S&anish BRs in their cor&us% Table C sho"s eBam&les of each tar'et of criticism from the cor&us:
?eneral content Re3imirano) &ubli aci#a Knaslo!M) ima#uTi u !idu n#enu namenu) da#e !rlo ne&ot&un &re'led KtemeM i sadrVi #oU usto i ni3 netaPnih &odata a% (B5$2 To summarise, the publication 'title(, ha$ing in mind its aim, gi$es a $ery incomplete o$er$ie% of 'the topic(> in addition, it contains a series of inaccuracies. 84!": 7eXutim) o ulo3i KLM KautorM ne 'o!ori do!ol#no% (B+2 .o%e$er, 'the author( does not talk sufficiently about the role of7 841: Osim to'a bi n#e'o!im memoars im rado!ima mno'o oristila i !eTa 3bi#enost i onci3nost i3la'an#a% (AC2 *n addition, his memoir %ork %ould benefit considerably from greater compactness and conciseness of e=position. 8 /: S!e bi to) mislimo) mo'lo intereso!ati strane &o3oriUne struPn#a e o#ima #e o!a &ubli aci#a u &r!om redu namen#ena% (B5$2 ll this 'omitted content(, %e think, could be of interest to foreign theatre scholars, %ho this publication is primarily aimed at. 84!": GaUto se #edno isto ime nala3i u atalo'u na tri ra3na naPinaS (B52 ?hy is the same name spelt in three different %ays in the catalogue+ 84!: I&a #e Pudno!ato da &isac Pesto &o a3u#e ne3nan#e na#obiPni#ih st!ariL (A$02 @e$ertheless, it is odd that the author often sho%s ignorance of the most common things... 8 "<: 7eXu ilustraci#ama nemaL (B5$2 mong the illustrations, '7( is missing 84!": No &re!odilac ne 3naL(AC62 .o%e$er, the translator does not kno%7 8 /2:

S&ecific content

Style

Readershi&

TeBt

Author

Publishin' Translation Q Translator

Table C% TaBonomy of tar'ets of criticism (ada&ted from 4yland 56662

The final ste& in the analysis concerned the relationshi& bet"een the

$F

nationality of the author "hose "or is re!ie"ed and the &arameters of criticism listed abo!e% =or the &ur&oses of this study) it "as sufficient to determine "hether the author and the re!ie"er had the same nationality (i%e%) Serbian in &eriods A and <) Zu'osla! in &eriod B2) "hereas determinin' the actual nationality of forei'n authors (e%'%) =rench or Russian2 "as irrele!ant to the analysis% Jud'ements "ere made on the basis of the authorsD name) affiliation) lan'ua'e in "hich the "or "as &ublished and &lace of &ublication as "ell as the information &ro!ided in the BRs themsel!es (e%'%) reference to Rour authorD or Rthe ?erman scholarD2% In case of local authors) many "ere names familiar to any educated s&ea er of Serbian% Boo s by SerbianQZu'osla! authors &ublished in forei'n lan'ua'es by &ublishin' houses abroad "ere not treated as forei'n% To ensure reliability of the analysis) $6] of the total cor&us (+ BRs2 "as inde&endently coded by a literary scholar) "ho is also a s&ea er of Serbian% There "ere no disa'reements in terms of identifyin' critical and uncritical BRs and locatin' instances of criticism% 4o"e!er) there "ere some disa'reements about their classification and their boundaries) "hich "ere discussed and resol!ed% Inter9rater reliability "as acce&table (%012% Ra" numbers of instances of criticism "ere normalised &er $666 "ords to enable com&arison of the three 'rou&s of teBts re'ardless of their len'th%

-% Results and discussion

A.". 6ritical $s. uncritical 4Rs As Table - sho"s) the number of critical BRs) i%e%) those containin' at least one instance of criticism) has considerably decreased o!er time% The decrease is dramatic in the 5666s) "hen uncritical BRs outnumber critical ones as criticism occurs in only CC] of the BRs in the cor&us% Althou'h Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a and Pab;n Berbes8 (56612 also found an increase in uncritical BRs in =rench medical BRs) in

$,

their cor&us the uncritical BRs do not outnumber the critical BRs in any &eriod%
Period A ($+669 $+6+2 1C] +$] +] 0+5 51] 6 $66] +$6 Period B ($+F69 $+F+2 ,6] 0+] $$] $)5F+ -6] 6 $66] 05F Period < (56669 566+2 CC] $66] 6 5)-10 ,1] F] +F] $)C6C Total in the "hole cor&us F,] +5] -] $)F-C (,$]2 --] 5%F] +1%F] $)6$C

<RITI<A/ BRs BRs containin' both &raise and criticism (] of critical BRs2 BRs containin' criticism only (] of critical BRs2 7ean len'th of critical BRs (number of "ords2 AN<RITI<A/ BRs Neutral (] of uncritical BRs2 BRs containin' &raise only (] of uncritical BRs2 7ean len'th of uncritical BRs (number of "ords2

Table -: <ritical and uncritical BRs in the three &eriods

7ost critical BRs in all three &eriods contain instances of both criticism and &raise% Only +] and $$] of the critical BRs in the $+66s and $+F6s) res&ecti!ely) are entirely critical) containin' no instances of &raise) "hile in the 5666s none of the BRs in the cor&us are com&letely critical% As for the uncritical BRs) they tend to be laudatory) containin' only (often la!ish2 &raise and no instances of criticism% Only one com&letely neutral BR "as found in the "hole cor&us) in &eriod <% The distinction bet"een critical and uncritical BRs dis&lays an interestin' relationshi& to BR "ord len'th% <ritical and uncritical BRs are almost eEual in len'th in the $+66s) but in the t"o later &eriods critical BRs are considerably lon'er than uncritical BRs% The 'reater len'th of critical BRs may be related to the fact that most critical BRs

$1

contain instances of &raise in addition to criticism) "hile uncritical BRs mainly &raise but do not criticise the boo under re!ie" and are therefore shorter% A.!. BreCuency of criticism A total of -+1 instances of criticism "ere identified in the cor&us% Althou'h the number of instances of criticism is the lar'est in &eriod B (5,62) the normalisation of ra" freEuencies &er $666 "ords to a!oid the effect of the difference in BR len'th sho"s that) in fact) &eriod A contains the lar'est numbers of instances of criticism &er $666 "ords of the total cor&us for that &eriod) as sho"n in Table F:
Period A ($+669 $+6+2 $16 $6%5 1%F Period B ($+F69 $+F+2 5,6 $6%+ ,%, Period < (56669 566+2 ,1 C%C $%$ Total

Instances of criticism Per $666 "ords in critical BRs Per $666 "ords of the total cor&us Table F% =reEuencies of criticism

-+1 1%-%F

To determine "hether the difference in the freEuencies of criticism in the three &eriods is statistically si'nificant) the *rus al9Jallis test "as used% The result "as si'nificant at &robability le!el &^ %666$% A series of &ost9hoc 7ann9Jhitney tests "as then run on all &airs of the three 'rou&s to determine "hich &airs "ere si'nificantly different% There "as a si'nificant difference bet"een &eriod A and &eriod < (&^ %66652 and bet"een &eriod B and &eriod < (&^%66102) "hile no si'nificant difference "as found bet"een &eriods A and B% Thus) it can be concluded that the freEuency of criticism in BRs &ublished in the 5666s is si'nificantly lo"er than in the earlier t"o &eriods%

$0

A./. Positions of criticism In all three &eriods) criticism is most commonly found in the main body of the BR teBt) follo"ed by the conclusion (see Table ,2% BRs rarely o&en "ith a critical remar . if they do) this tends to be the case "ith BRs that are &redominantly critical throu'hout the teBt% O&enin' and closin' &ositions are ty&ically occu&ied by 'lobal e!aluations of the "or under re!ie". therefore) criticism in these &ositions im&lies an o!erall ne'ati!e assessment% The clusterin' of criticism in the middle &art of the BR allo"s the "riter to soften the critiEue in the final &ara'ra&h of the BR thus endin' on a &ositi!e note% Another &attern is the location of criticism in the final &ara'ra&h) follo"ed by &raise as a miti'ation de!ice in the !ery last sentence% In that res&ect) it is note"orthy that) in contrast to the $+66s and the $+F6s) in the 5666s there are no instances of criticism in the final sentence of the BR% This "as also the case in Sala'er97eyerDs (56$62 cor&us of medical BRs in En'lish from the $++6s% The findin's are also in line "ith 4ylandDs (56662 study of BRs in ei'ht disci&lines) "hich sho"ed that only C] of BR started "ith criticism) and less than 56] ended on it%
Period A ($+669+2 F] ,,] 55] 1] Period B ($+F69+2 6%-] 0F] $$] C] Period < (56669+2 5] 1C] 5F] 6] Total 5] 11] $1] -]

Initial 7iddle =inal &ara'ra&h =inal sentence

Table ,% Positions of criticism eB&ressed as &ercenta'es

A.A. )irect $s. mitigated criticism and related mitigation strategies

$+

The analysis sho"s that in the $+66s and $+F6s BR "riters tended to eB&ress criticism directly) "hereas in the 5666s they 'i!e &reference to miti'ated criticism) "hich softens the critical ed'e% This historical de!elo&ment is similar to that found in S&anish medical BRs) "here a decrease in the &ercenta'e of direct criticism "as noted in the $++6s) althou'h) unli e in the Serbian case) it remained hi'her than the &ercenta'e of indirect criticism (Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Gambrano 566C2% Table 1 sho"s that the hi'hest &ro&ortion of direct criticism (,F]2 "as found in the $+F6s% Sala'er97eyer (56$62 also found criticism in the mid956th century En'lish medical BRs to be &olemical and harsh% Another detail that deser!es to be hi'hli'hted is the shar&ness of the decrease in the &ercenta'e of direct criticism in the 5666s from ,F] to C,]% @ata for the 5666s sho" a stri in' similarity to En'lish: in 4ylandDs (56662 cor&us of BRs) more than ,F] of all instances of criticism "ere miti'ated) an almost identical &ercenta'e to that of miti'ated criticism in the /7S for &eriod <%
Period A ($+669$+6+2 F,] --] Period B ($+F69$+F+2 ,F] CF] Period < (56669566+2 C,] ,-] Total -5] F0]

@irect <R 7iti'ated

Table 1% @irect and miti'ated criticism eB&ressed as &ercenta'es

To determine the statistical si'nificance of these differences) t"o series of statistical tests "ere run) as described earlier) for miti'ated and unmiti'ated instances of criticism) res&ecti!ely% It "as sho"n that there "as no si'nificant difference in the number of instances of either miti'ated or unmiti'ated criticism bet"een &eriods A and B% 4o"e!er) the difference "as si'nificant for both miti'ated and unmiti'ated criticism bet"een &eriods A and < (&^%66,, for miti'ated criticism and &^%660 for unmiti'ated criticism2 and bet"een &eriods B and < (&^%65C+ for miti'ated criticism and &^%6$61 for unmiti'ated criticism2% This confirms that an im&ortant chan'e in the le!el of

56

directness of criticism occurred bet"een the $+F6s and the 5666s% The analysis further focuses on the miti'ation strate'ies used to soften the criticism) "hose im&ortance) as can be seen) 'ro"s in the most recent &eriod% It is sho"n that an array of de!ices "as used in all three &eriods% All the ty&es in the taBonomy are found in all three &eriods of the cor&us% There are also instances "here multi&le miti'ation strate'ies are used "ith a sin'le instance of criticism) as in the follo"in' eBam&le) "here criticism is &receded by &raise but is also hed'ed (Hnot entirely con!incin'I2: (,2 I3!oXen#e n#e'o!o !eoma #e 3animl#i!o) ali na ne im mestima ne mno'o ubedl#i!o% (AF2 .is reasoning is $ery interesting, but in some places not entirely con$incing. 8 5:

As can be seen from Table 0) the most common ty&e of miti'ation in all three &eriods is hed'in'% 4ed'es are &articularly freEuent in the BRs in the 5666s) "hen more than half of all miti'ated instances of criticism are hed'ed% The second most freEuent miti'ation strate'y in all three &eriods is the &raise9criticism &air% Other miti'ation strate'ies are also used in all three &eriods "ith lo"er freEuencies%

5$
Period A ($+669$+6+2 -5] C-] 0] $,] 5] $] C] $] Period B ($+F69$+F+2 50] $+] $0] $-] $-] +] $$] 1] Period < (56669566+2 F,] CF] 1] $,] F] 5] $-] 1] Total C+] 50] $5] $F] 0] F] $6] F]

4ed'in' Praise \ <riticism Pair Jriter res&onsibility Other attribution 7etadiscoursal brac etin' /imited &raise Eu&hemistic criticism Justification of the shortcomin'

Table 0% 7iti'ation strate'ies eB&ressed as &ercenta'es

A.5. Targets of criticism The results in Table + sho" that the ma#ority of critical acts in all three &eriods "ere aimed at s&ecific issues related to the content of "or s under re!ie"% This is similar to 4ylandDs (56662 findin's about tar'ets of criticism in contem&orary BRs "ritten in En'lish% Althou'h this focus on s&ecific content issues remains constant throu'hout the three &eriods) there are also some interestin' differences% =or instance) issues related to style (i%e%) com&osition) clarity) conciseness2 become more im&ortant o!er time) "hile those related to teBtual issues (i%e%) referencin') 'lossary2 decrease in im&ortance% It is also interestin' that criticism tar'etin' the author com&letely disa&&ears in the 5666s) sho"in' that criticism has become less &ersonal) and thus less face9 threatenin'%

55
Period A ($+669$+6+2 $5] F$] C] 6%,] $$] $F] 5] ,] Period B ($+F69$+F+2 $C] F6] $C] 5] 0] 1] 1] 6%-] Period < (56669566+2 1] ,$] $F] $] -] 6 6 6 Total $5] FC] $$] $] 0] +] -] 5]

?eneral content S&ecific content Style Readershi& TeBt Author Publishin' Translation

Table +% Tar'ets of criticism eB&ressed as &ercenta'es

A.;. @ationality of the author of the book under re$ie% As stated in the introduction) one of the factors affectin' the eB&ression of criticism in small academic communities may be the fact that authors and re!ie"ers are li ely to no" each other &ersonally% Therefore) it seemed "orth"hile to ta e into account the nationality of the author in all three &eriods in order to chec "hether re!ie"ers critiEue boo s by local and forei'n authors in different "ays% Althou'h focusin' on national academic culture ta es into account only one dimension of academic community membershi&) "hereas other alle'iances) such as school of thou'ht or research &aradi'm are eBcluded) su&&ort for in!esti'atin' the national as&ect of membershi& "as found in the descri&tion of the focus and aims of /7S itself% In Period A and < the aims of the #ournal fore'round the national) i%e%) Serbian) as&ect% 4o"e!er) due to &olitical and historical chan'es outlined in Section 5) the definition of nationality chan'ed

5C

o!er time% Thus in &eriod B the community is defined "ithin a lar'er national frame"or ) i%e%) Zu'osla! rather than Serbian%
Period A ($+669$+6+2 BRs about boo s by Serbian Q Zu'osla! authors BRs about boo s by forei'n authors -1] FC] (includin' ,] in translation2 Period B ($+F69 $+F+2 +1] C] Period < (56669 566+2 $66] 6 Total

0$] $+]

Table $6% Pro&ortions of BRs of boo s by SerbianQZu'osla! and forei'n authors

The most im&ortant findin') dis&layed in Table $6) is that re!ie"s of boo s "ritten by forei'n authors on some as&ect of Serbian literature or history) "hile constitutin' the ma#ority of BRs in the $+66s) are com&letely absent in the 5666s) des&ite the same focus of the #ournal in both &eriods on Serbian literary and historical to&ics% It is hard to ima'ine that there is no scholarly interest in such to&ics in todayDs international academia) es&ecially 'i!en recent history) "hich attracted scholarly attention% The absence of "or s by forei'n authors amon' boo s re!ie"ed in the /7S in the 5666s) either in translation or in the ori'inal lan'ua'es) may be rather due to editorial concerns to &rioritise re!ie"s of "or s by members of the Serbian academic community &ublished locally) "hose numbers ha!e mushroomed in com&arison to the $+66s% This tendency to focus on national &roduction only may also be &art of a lar'er trend% As =rederi sson (56612 notes) "hile Euro&ean literary criticism used to be mar ed by a cosmo&olitan &ers&ecti!e in the &ast) today it tends to be Ha !ery national affairI% Althou'h he discusses BRs of literary "or s) the same may be true for BRs of scholarly "or s in literary studies% This) ho"e!er) remains to be confirmed by further research% Because of this findin') the relationshi& bet"een the nationality of the author and the eB&ressions of criticism can only be analysed in &eriod A% Table $6 sho"s that sli'htly more than half of the BRs in the $+66s are re!ie"s of "or s by forei'n authors% These include 5

5-

translated "or s and a total of $- "or s &ublished in other lan'ua'es: Russian (F2) =rench (C2) <roatian (52) <3ech (52) ?erman (52) and 4un'arian (52% Of these BRs) 0$] contain instances of criticism "hile only are +] uncritical% There are instances of criticism in the cor&us that eB&licitly hi'hli'ht the forei'nness of the authors "hose "or is re!ie"ed) thus em&hasi3in' the usQthem dimension) as in: (12 Nadali smo se da Te nam moVda o#i 3a&adni &odata bol#e ob#asniti o!o dosta ne#asno mesto u KLM) ali nada nas #e obmanula% (A$C2 ?e %ere hoping that some ?estern data %ould better e=plain this fairly unclear point in '7(, but hope has decei$ed us. 8 "/:

The RJesternD in this eBam&le hints at the su&erior status of scholarshi& in Jestern Euro&e) "hich) the re!ie"er &oints out) fails to &ro!e its su&eriority in eB&lainin' this &articular &oint% EBam&les of national stereoty&in' in the s&here of scholarshi&) i%e%) cases "here re!ie"ers see the "or as embodyin' the features they consider ty&ical of the national scholarly tradition in the authorDs country) are also &resent: (02 Reda #e K_M nauPni ) o#i Te na&isati) ma i o na#ne3natni#em &redmetu malu ras&ra!u% KLM I &rof% *% &ati od te bolesti% (A$02 *t is rare to find a 'nationality D( scholar %ho %ill %rite a short treatise e$en on a most insignificant topic. '7( Professor E. too suffers from this malady. 8 "<:

In the follo"in' eBcer&t) the re!ie"er criticises the author for not ha!in' consulted Serbian scholarly literature "hen "ritin' about a to&ic related to Serbian history% Note the re!ie"erDs use of the first &erson &lural) "hich con!eys a sense of the collecti!e national o"nershi& of the sub#ect matter (Rour themesD) Rour &astD2 and of the scholarly literature about it (Rour historical literatureD2: (+2 KAutorM mno'o se ba!io naUim st!arima i mno'o &isao o naUo#

5F
&roUlosti. sto'a #e 3aista !rlo Pudno!ato) da ta o slabo &o3na#e naUu istori#s u literaturu% (L2 Od ono'a Uto #e od nas uraXeno Kna tu temuM) KautorM ni#e 'oto!o niUta u&otrebio) Uto #e !eli i nedostata % (A$02 'The author( has dealt a lot %ith our themes and has %ritten a lot about our past> therefore, it is $ery strange indeed that he kno%s so little about our historical literature. 87: 0f the %orks %ritten here 'i.e., by Serbian authors( on 'the topic(, 'the author( used almost nothing, %hich is a great shortcoming. 8 "<:

Such instances of national ri!alry "ere also found in =rench BRs of "or s by An'lo9American authors (Sala'er97eyer : Alcara3 Ari3a 566-. Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Pab;n 56612% As for BRs about boo s by Serbian authors in this &eriod) the &ercenta'e of critical BRs is lo"er in this 'rou& (,-]2 in com&arison to BRs of boo s by forei'n authors (0$]2% /oo in' at the data from a different &ers&ecti!e) C1%F] of all uncritical BRs in the $+66s cor&us are about boo s by forei'n authors) "hile ,5%F] are about "or s by Serbian authors% This su''ests that "riters tend to be more critical "hen the author is not a member of the same community% Interestin'ly) amon' the boo s by Serbian authors) 5+] are &ublished in ?erman by Austrian or ?erman &ublishers% These boo s seem to ha!e a s&ecial status: their re!ie"s do not contain any criticism) but rather tend to la!ish &raise on scholars "hose "or "as reco'nised by international centres of scholarshi&%

F% <onclusion
This study of criticism in BRs in the oldest Serbian scholarly #ournal has sho"n that considerable chan'es ha!e ta en &lace in the freEuencies and some other but not all &arameters of criticism% The most sur&risin' findin' is the &re!alence of uncritical BRs in the latest) still current) &eriod% Jhile an increase in uncritical BRs has

5,

also been noted by Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a and Pab;n Berbes8 (56612 in the case of =rench medical BRs in the last decades of the $+th and the 56th centuries) in their cor&us uncritical BRs did not outnumber critical ones in either of the t"o &eriods% Je can only s&eculate "hy this mo!e to"ards a!oidance of criticism is occurrin' in Serbian academic discourse in this &articular #ournal% Se!eral &ossible eB&lanations can be offered% One may be found in the reduced si3e of the academic discourse community due to eBternal factors) "hich may ha!e resulted in BR "ritin' becomin' a &otentially e!en more face9threatenin' act) as the author and the re!ie"er are li ely to no" each other &ersonally% 4ence) to a!oid confrontation and as a "ay of self9&rotection) "riters may resort to bein' less critical and focusin' on the &ositi!e as&ects of the "or or choosin' to contribute to the discussion of the to&ic instead% Analysis of the 'eneric structure of BRs alon' the lines of 7otta9Roth ($++02 and 7oreno and Su>re3 (5660b2) from a diachronic &ers&ecti!e) "ould shed li'ht on chan'es in the im&ortance of different mo!es in BRs o!er time% Another eB&lanation for the increase in uncritical BRs may be that the !ie" of the role of criticism has chan'ed in the community surroundin' the #ournal in li'ht of the chan'es in the lar'er society) leadin' to an increased need for social solidarity amon' members of a diminished community en'a'in' in scholarly "or % This reason may also eB&lain the findin' that in the latest &eriod only locally &ublished boo s are re!ie"ed) "hile boo s by forei'n authors and by Serbian authors &ublishin' abroad are absent% Similarly to the debate in the $+th century about the role of criticism) the community surroundin' the /7S may be more concerned "ith &ro!idin' su&&ort to indi!idual members at this time than "ith maintainin' scholarly standards by &ro!idin' criticism% Jhile there is some e!idence that the same trend can be obser!ed in other national literary communities (see =rederi sson 56612) this eB&lanation remains a hy&othesis "ithout further research in!ol!in' inter!ie"s "ith editors) "riters) and readers% The decrease in the number of BRs containin' criticism is not the only indicator of the tendency to"ards a!oidance of criticism identified in this study% Another noticeable chan'e in this direction is the decrease in the freEuency of criticism in 'eneral as "ell as in

51

direct and &ersonal criticism (i%e%) criticism tar'etin' the author2% Jhat remains constant is the &osition of criticism in BRs) "hich tends to cluster in the middle sections of the BR) as in other lan'ua'es% Another &attern common to all three &eriods is the &reference for hed'es and &raise9criticism &airs as miti'ation strate'ies% =inally) in all three &eriods the most common tar'ets of critical acts are s&ecific content &oints% In com&arison to diachronic chan'es of criticism in BRs in other lan'ua'es) Serbian resembles &eninsular S&anish in that in both academic cultures there is an increase in the number of instances of indirect criticism and decrease in direct ones in the most recent &eriod ($++6s for S&anish) and 5666s for Serbian2. ho"e!er) the com&arison does not hold for other as&ects of criticism% Jhile this a&&roBimation to the En'lish model may be eB&lained as &art of the 'lobalisation of science in the case of S&anish medical BRs (Sala'er97eyer) Alcara3 Ari3a : Gambrano 566C2) since medical #ournals are &articularly affected by the con!entions of En'lish academic "ritin' (for a re!ie" of the literature on /5 scholarsD &ublication in En'lish) see A3uner 56602) in the case of national humanities #ournals) such as the /7S) the reason for such chan'es may lie else"here% In the case of the /7S) in &articular) the in"ard9loo in' tendency of the last &eriod seems to rule out such an eB&lanation% In addition) the diminishin' &resence of criticism is not in line "ith the En'lish lan'ua'e model% A similar a!oidance of criticism "as found in &eninsular S&anish but not British BRs in the 5666s in the field of history by /orNs San3 (566+2) "ho attributes this &henomenon to broader socio9cultural factors such as the si3e of the academic community) the sco&e of the distribution of the #ournal) and the differin' understandin's of the &ur&ose of the BR 'enre in the t"o "ritin' cultures% =ocusin' on a small cor&us from a sin'le #ournal) this study is admittedly limited in sco&e% Jhile such an a&&roach has its ad!anta'es in diachronic studies as it &ro!ides continuity in terms of certain &arameters of the cor&us) its disad!anta'e is that some of the findin's may be s&ecific to the &ublication outlet rather than the academic community as a "hole% Ne!ertheless) as a first study of Serbian academic discourse eBaminin' criticism in BRs from a diachronic &ers&ecti!e) it has re!ealed interestin' &atterns of chan'e

50

and has o&ened u& Euestions for future research in this area% =urther research is needed to determine "hether chan'es identified in this study ha!e occurred in BRs in Serbian #ournals in other humanities) life and hard sciences% Es&ecially interestin' "ould be to eBamine such tra#ectories in the numerous Serbian #ournals that ha!e recently shifted to En'lish and are thus li ely to be more eB&osed to &ractices in En'lish academic discourse% This study has also re!ealed interestin' findin's concernin' the factor of author nationality) such as the tendency of BR "riters to be less critical "hen the author belon's to the same national academic community% Jhile data a!ailable on this issue are insufficient to ma e definite conclusions about the relationshi& bet"een author nationality and the manner in "hich criticism is eB&ressed) they su''est that further research on this to&ic is "orth"hile%

References
At inson) @"i'ht $++5% The E!olution of 7edical Research Jritin' from $1CF to $+0F: The <ase of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. pplied Linguistics,$C) CC19C1-% Bur'ess) Sally) : =a'an) Ana 5665% (*id2 ?lo!es on or off: Academic <onflict in Research Articles across the @isci&lines% Re$ista 6anaria de Estudios *ngleses, --) 1+9+,% Ba3erman) <harles $+00% Shaping ?ritten Eno%ledge& The Fenre and cti$ity of the E=perimental rticle in Science. 7adison) JI%: Ani!ersity of Jisconsin Press% @us3a ) Anna (ed%2 $++1% 6ulture and Styles of cademic )iscourse. Berlin: 7outon de ?ruyter% =rederi sson) <arl 4enri (56612% The Re9transnationali3ation of literary criticism% EuroGine, Retrie!ed from: `htt&:QQ"""%euro3ine%comQarticlesQ566196196-9fredri sson9 en%htmla ?iannoni) @a!ide Simone 566F% Ne'ati!e E!aluation in Academic @iscourse% A <om&arison of En'lish and Italian Research

5+

Articles% Linguistica e filologia 56) 1$9++% 4yland) *en 5666% )isciplinary )iscourses. Social *nteractions in cademic ?riting. /ondon: /on'man% Johnson) @onna 7% $++5% <om&liments and Politeness in Peer9re!ie" TeBts% pplied Linguistics $CQ$) F$91$% *uhn) Thomas S% $+,-% The Structure of Scientific Re$olutions. <hica'o: Ani!ersity of <hica'o Press% /atour) Bruno $+01% Science in ction& .o% to Bollo% Scientists and Engineers through Society. <ambrid'e) 7A: 4ar!ard Ani!ersity Press% Letopis Matice Srpske% (n%d%2 A!ailable at: htt&:QQ"""%maticasr&s a%or'%yuQ&a'esQi3dan#aQleto&is%htm /ast accessed: $6Q6,Q56$6% /orNs San3) Rosa 566+% (Non92<ritical Ooices in the Re!ie"in' of 4istory @iscourse: A <ross9<ultural Study of E!aluation% In 4yland) *en Q @iani) ?iuliana (eds2 cademic E$aluation. Re$ie% Fenres in Hni$ersity Setting. Basin'sto e: Pal'ra!e 7acmillan) $-C9$,6% 7art8n97art8n) Pedro) : Bur'ess) Sally 566-% The Rhetorical 7ana'ement of Academic <riticism in Research Article Abstracts% Te=t, 5-Q5) $1$9$+F% 7ilisa!ac) Yi!an 5666% *stori#a Matice Srpske, *** deo, "<<23"1"<& na niGbrdici '.istory of Matica Srpska, Part ***, "<<23"1"<& Foing )o%nhill(. No!i Sad: 7atica Sr&s a% 7inistry of Science and Technolo'ical @e!elo&ment) Re&ublic of Serbia 56$6% <ate'orisation of #ournals for the Serbian lan'ua'e and literature% A!ailable at: htt&:QQ"""%nau a%'o!%rsQcirQima'esQstoriesQ7aticnibnbodboriQ /istebcaso&isab56$6Qsr&s ib#e3i b n#i3e!nost%&df% /ast accessed: $6Q6,Q56$6% 7oreno) Ana I%) : Su>re3) /orena 5660a% A Study of <ritical Attitude across En'lish and S&anish Academic Boo Re!ie"s% Journal of English for cademic Purposes, 1Q$) $F95,% 7oreno) Ana I%) : Su>re3) /orena 5660b% The Rhetorical Structure of Academic Boo Re!ie"s of /iterature: an En'lish9S&anish <ross9/in'uistic A&&roach% In <onnor) Alla Q Na'elhout) Ed Q Ro3yc i) Jilliam (eds2 6ontrasti$e Rhetoric& Reaching to

C6

*ntellectual Rhetoric% Amsterdam: John Ben#amins) $FF9$,0% 7otta9Roth) @NsirNe% $++0% @iscourse Analysis and Academic Boo Re!ie"s: A Study of TeBt and @isci&linary <ultures% In =ortanet) Inmaculada Q Poste'uillo) Santia'o Q Palmer) Juan <) Q <oll) Juan =% (eds2 Fenre Studies in English for cademic Purposes. <astell;: Ani!ersitat Jaume I) 5+9F0% 7yers) ?re' $+0+% Pra'matic Politeness in Scientific Articles% pplied Linguistics, $6, $9CF% Po'aPni ) JoVe $+1,% Ti&olo'i#a n#iVe!nih Paso&isa u &r!o# &olo!ini _I_ !e a KTy&olo'y of /iterary Journals in the =irst 4alf of the $+th <enturyM% @auIni sastanak sla$ista u Juko$e dane% Referati i saopKten#a. Beo'rad: 7ed#unarodni sla!istiP i centar Srbi#e) $,19$06% Sala'er97eyer) =rancoise $+++% <ontentiousness in Jritten 7edical En'lish @iscourse: A @iachronic Study ($0$6 \ $++F2) Te=t) $+QC) C1$ \ C+0% Sala'er97eyer) =rancoise 56$6% Academic Boo Re!ie"s and the <onstruction of Scientific *no"led'e ($0+69566F2% In Poste'uillo) Santia'o Q ?ea Oalor) M Llusa / Garca Izquierdo, Isabel / Esteve, Maria Jose (eds2 Linguistic and Translation Studies in Scientific 6ommunication. Bern: Peter /an'% Sala'er97eyer) =rancoise) : Alcara3 Ari3a) 7ar8a A% 566C% Academic <riticism in S&anish 7edical @iscourse: a <ross9 ?eneric Study% *nternational Journal of pplied Linguistics) $CQ$) +,9$$-% Sala'er97eyer) =rancoise) Alcara3 Ari3a) 7ar8a A%) : Gambrano) Nahirana% 566C% The Scimitar) the @a''er and the ?lo!e: Intercultural @ifferences in the Rhetoric of <riticism in S&anish) =rench and En'lish 7edical @iscourse ($+C6 \ $++F2) English for Specific Purposes) 55QC) 55C95-1% Sala'er97eyer) =rancoise) : Alcara3 Ari3a) 7ar8a A% 566-% Ne'ati!e A&&raisals in Academic Boo Re!ie"s: A <ross9/in'uistic A&&roach% In <andlin) <risto&her Q ?otti) 7auri3io (eds2 *ntercultural spects of Specialised 6ommunication%

C$

=ran furt: Peter /an') $-+9$15% Sala'er97eyer) =rancoise) Alcara3 Ari3a) 7ar8a A%) : Pab;n Berbes8) 7aryelis 5661% <olle'iality) <ritiEue and the <onstruction of Scientific Ar'umentation in 7edical Boo Re!ie"s: A @iachronic A&&roach% Journal of Pragmatics, C+Q$6) $1F09 $11-% Sala'er97eyer) =rancoise) Alcara3 Ari3a) 7ar8a A%) : Pab;n) 7aryelis 5661% The Prosecutor and the @efendant: <ontrastin' <ritical Ooices in =rench9 and En'lish9Jritten Academic Boo Re!ie"s% In =ldttum) *#ersti (ed2 Language and )iscipline Perspecti$es on cademic )iscourse% Ne"castle: <ambrid'e Scholars Publishin') $6+9$50% Sha") Phili& 566-% 4o" do "e Reco'nise Im&licit E!aluation in academic boo re!ie"sS In @el /un'o <amiciotti) ?abriella) : Elena To'nini Bonelli (eds2 cademic )iscourse& Linguistic *nsights into E$aluation% Bern: Peter /an') $5$9$-6% Sha") Phili&) : Oassile!a) Irena 566+% <o9e!ol!in' Academic Rhetoric across <ulture. Britain) Bul'aria) @enmar ) ?ermany in the 56th <entury% Journal of Pragmatics -$:5+6\ C6F% S"ales) John $++6% Fenre nalysis. English in cademic Research Settings. <ambrid'e: <ambrid'e Ani!ersity Press% Tartal#a) I!o $+1,% SemantiP e &romene rePi R n#iVe!nostD na stranicama /eto&isa KSemantic <han'es in the Jord R/iteratureD on the Pa'es of the LetopisM% @auIni sastanak sla$ista u Juko$e dane% Referati i saopKten#a. Beo'rad: 7ed#unarodni sla!istiP i centar Srbi#e) $0$9$01% A3uner) Sedef 5660% 7ultilin'ual ScholarsD Partici&ation in <ore Q ?lobal Academic <ommunities: A /iterature Re!ie"% Journal of English for cademic Purposes 1: 5F695,C% Yi! o!iT) @ra'iUa $+F1% PoIeci srpske kn#iLe$ne kritike 8"<"93"<;2: 'The 4eginnings of Serbian Literary 6riticism 8"<"93"<;2:(. Beo'rad: Rad%