Cabrera 1

Darian Cabrera

Professor Pierson

ENC1102

23 February 2018

Task Two: Annotated Bibliography

Lexis affects the ways people interact and communicate with one another in both

discourse communities and communities of practice as there is always unique language across

each community. Within the film reviewing industry this is especially important as critics and

consumer audiences interact with one another, discussing the aspects of current films that have

been released, and reviewing their overall quality, using specific lexis that pertains to each genre

of film in order to express the expectations they have (and had) for each film. The lexis used by

the film review community requires an understanding of each film that is discussed to enable a

critic’s review and/or a consumer’s review to establish ethos within the community’s discussion

of the film and have value that contributes to its overall rating. A community’s structure shapes

the goals they have, which is impacted by the lexis they utilize in their texts (Johns, 1997).

Furthermore, research has shown that the lexis a reviewer utilizes helps determine whether their

overall evaluation is positive or negative and builds their credibility by conforming to an

objective viewpoint (Shaw, 2009). However, while many scholars have analyzed some aspect of

the rhetorical situation including exigence, audience, or constraints (Ede & Lunsford, 1984), or

how they all are interconnected (Grant-Davie, 1997), and the components of ethos as well as

how it changes across each situation (Cherry, 1998), they offer limited or no implications on how

lexis plays a role on a writer’s ethos.

 Cabrera 2

The exigence of this annotated bibliography is to determine the impact that lexis has on a

writer’s ethos, specifically within the film review community, by utilizing previous research on

the components of the rhetorical situation—which affect a writer’s lexis—and ethos to establish

connections. After researching various studies on film reviews and lexis, there has been no direct

discussion on how a critic’s choice of lexis impacts their ethos with their audience(s), but rather

a focus on how their reviews impact the revenues of movies in the theater. While this might

indicate they have good ethos with their audience (if a movie is raking in revenue or doing

poorly at the theatre there’s a chance critic reviews are affecting this), it is not definite as there

are other factors to consider. Because of this, I would like to focus on the lexical aspects of film

reviews to figure out how they establish ethos with their readers as well as determine if this,

then, has an impact on the consumer audience’s desire to see a movie in the theater. I propose

two research questions as a guide: How does the lexis of a movie critic help build his or her

ethos in their film reviews? Does the movie critic’s review then affect the consumer audience’s

desire to see a film?

Primary Sources

Jon. (2018, January 10). Was your journalistic integrity enhanced by politicizing the beginning
of a rant that clearly doesn’t begin to match the majority of those who have watched the
movie? Retrieved from http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/bright-review-netflix-will-
smith-max-landis-david-ayer-worst-movie-2017-1201909960/

The comments left by consumers on critic reviews serve an important role in giving their
feedback on how well the review is written, and whether or not they agree. The
comments have multiple exigencies including, giving the reviewer feedback on potential
errors they made as well as the areas where they demonstrate good points towards their
audience, informing other consumers about the overall review’s quality even before
reading it (if they choose to read the comments before the review), and to share their
viewpoint on the film’s quality. Consumer comments genre fall under a form of internet
communication as it serves as a medium for consumers to share their viewpoints with the
critic as well as others involved in the community. The main audience the consumers
write their comments for are the critic they are responding to as the comments section is
underneath the review article and serves the main purpose of responding to the author of
 Cabrera 3

the publication. Other audiences include other consumers engaged in the comments
section, allowing for quick conversations about the article, and consumers who refrain
from commenting but do read the comments for additional insight on the film and critic
review. The comments paint a picture on how well a critic’s review is perceived, and
possibly the effect it has had on the audience’s motivation to see the film reviewed.
Furthermore, the way the review is perceived by the commenters will reflect the critic’s
ethos in the community. This is commonly apparent through the specific lexis that
commenters use, often citing the language the critic utilizes in their review and using it to
point out errors by the critic as well as points that reinforces the critic’s viewpoint. Using
Ede and Lunsford’s article on audience addressed and audience invoked will allow me to
better analyze these texts by using their concepts about the roles an audience assumes
when responding to a writer, especially the point about their choosing on whether to
accept or reject the roles put in place by the writer of the review.

Lane, A. (2018, February 15) “The Insult” and “Paddington 2” [Review of the film Paddington
2, 2018] The New Yorker. Retrieved from
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/the-insult-and-paddington-2

This post I am analyzing is written by Anthony Lane, a top critic on rotten tomatoes,
which involves his review of Paddington 2. The exigencies for his film reviews, as well
as all the other critics on rotten tomatoes, is to persuade the members (other critics,
consumer reviewers, and readers) of the community on how well or how poorly the film
did, and to improve the filmmaking industry. The genre of this post is a digitally
published film review present on the rotten tomatoes site as well as on the publishing site
of the film critic. This allows the post to reach a greater audience by having members of
the rotten tomatoes community see it as well as those who visit the publication site. The
post is written for any audience that comes across the review online that has an interest in
film critique to get insight on a movie’s performance; though, it is specifically for other
film critics, consumer reviewers, and consumer readers who are engaged in the rotten
tomatoes community. The lexis a critic utilizes in their review should be relevant to the
film they are reviewing and incorporate aspects of the film that would ultimately build
their ethos with their readers in the community. However, I will have to analyze the
reviews in detail to see in what ways they achieve this goal, and if they do so at all. The
analysis I conduct will be supplemented by the articles of Ann Johns, Keith Grant-
Davie, Phillip Shaw, and Cherry Roger. John’s conventions for academic texts and
her differentiation of a discourse community from a community of practice allows me to
see the rotten tomatoes community from two perspectives: the critics and the
consumers. Focusing on the critic reviews, I can see how they utilize the academic
conventions Johns discusses in her article as their language should follow some of
these closely as critics fit within the discourse community type and academic level
writing as they are professionals in this field. Grant-Davie’s article will help me analyze
the rhetorical situation of each review, and therefore, find constraints on the lexis they
use as they must conform their writing so that it is appropriate for their audience. Shaw’s
definition of the disinterested genre of reviewers will be helpful in my ability to
 Cabrera 4

determine whether or not film reviewers create a well-balanced review that gives them
their credibility, or if the lexis they use appears to be too extreme to the point their review
fails to keep an appropriate level of objectivity for their audience. Finally, Roger’s
definition of ethos gives me good insight into determining whether the review has good
credibility by analyzing whether the critic follows the components of ethos (showing
competence, knowledge, and respect to audience).

Rotten Tomatoes (1998, August 12). Certified fresh picks. Retrieved from:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/

This website is the center focus of my research as it is the medium for communication of
the film review community I am analyzing, where the reviews written by critics and
consumers are presented which contribute to the community’s overall rating of each film.
The website’s exigence is to allow a communication space and rating scale for critics and
consumers to post their reviews on films they have watched which serve as a way to
inform the public about the quality of films currently in theatre as well as to improve
the film industry. The genre for the website falls under film review as it encompasses
films across different genres that are reviewed by both critics and consumers, with an
overall critic review rating as well as consumer audience rating. The primary audience for
this website is film review critics as well as consumer reviewers. Additionally, the
website is utilized by consumers who simply share an interest in reading film reviews in
order to gauge what movies are currently worth watching. This can be broken down into
consumers who regularly do this as well as those who occasionally visit the site when
unsure of a particular movie’s quality that they may want to see. This is evident as the
website explains the lexis it uses so that anyone who visits the site can understand the
community structure and easily navigate through reviews. An example of this is the site’s
system for movie ratings, known as the “tomatometer”, which is represented by the
professional critic publications on the site. Using John’s ideas on discourse communities
and communities of practice, I will be able to analyze the lexical terms of the site’s rating
system as it is split up so that there is a separate rating for critics and another for
consumers. This helps differentiate the community structure as the critics fall under a
discourse community while the consumers are under a community of practice. The
analyzation of the website’s lexical terms for its rating systems will further my
understanding of the impact that the critic reviews have had on a movie’s rating, and the
likelihood those reviews have motivated the consumer audience to see a movie.

Secondary Sources

Cherry, R. (1998). Ethos versus persona. Written Communication, 15(3), 384-410. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088398015003009

This article, written by Roger Cherry, discusses the differences between the terms of
ethos and persona, which are often viewed by many in writing research as having the
 Cabrera 5

same meaning. He breaks down the meaning of ethos as the author’s credibility with his
or her audience, derived by securing the audience’s trust and respect by demonstrating
integrity, intelligence, and showing care for the audience. Contrastingly, he defines
persona as the role a writer takes on within their text that is best suited for the
audience they are addressing. Essentially, an author’s previous text(s) already
established their ethos in those particular rhetorical situations, but in a new text, the
situation has changed due to a new audience, and the author must build their ethos with
a new audience by assuming a role that fits the new audience. This allows the writer to
better identify themselves with different audiences to build credibility with them beyond
their previous work. Cherry concludes that understanding the difference between ethos
and persona is pertinent to better understanding rhetorical and literary criticism by
allowing for analysis of the different ways a writer projects themselves in their texts (pg.
270). Looking at ethos involves looking at the integrity, intelligence, and good will
displayed by the writer towards the audience while persona involves critiquing the role(s)
established in the text (pg. 270). This connects to Grant-Davie’s rhetorical situation as he
discusses the different ways a rhetor writes for his audience. A rhetor takes on different
roles for different audiences and therefore thinks differently when writing for each one.
Furthermore, they may assume multiple roles simultaneously in their text or try to convey
a single one to their audience. Grant-Davie ties this to his discussion of the rhetorical
situation, arguing that the roles writers take on are constrained by each situation, with
some leading to a writer assuming new roles and/or removing others. Cherry’s article can
aid my research as the distinctions he makes between an author’s ethos and persona are
an important piece in determining the role a writer assumes in order to address their
audience, and therefore determining whether or not the audience perceives the writer
as a credible source. This is important to my community as a film critic can be viewed
differently across different audiences (other critics, from consumer to consumer) that
may read his or her review. Critics may carry strong ethos if they have written many
reviews that have previously received positive feedback from their audience,
however, if they write a review on a film of a genre they have never done before they
must assume a new persona that is appropriate for the new audience in order for their
review to receive better judgement by the audience. Ultimately, a critic may have
credibility in writing reviews in some genres while not so much in others, they may be
consistent across all, or not at all; this article will provide additional insight to the
conclusions I come to in my paper.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in
composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, (2), 155-
170. doi: 10.2307/358093

Lisa Ede’s and Andrea Lunsford’s article details the role of audience in composition
theory by looking at two different types of audience discussed by previous scholars and
explaining why focusing on one or the other does not explain the idea of audience well
enough and propose a different view that better articulates audience. The two types
 Cabrera 6

discussed are audience addressed—the physical audience the writer is writing their
text for—and audience invoked which is the audience the writer creates in their mind
based on who they believe they are writing for. They argue that solely analyzing
audience as addressed causes too much emphasis on the writer while only analyzing
audience invoked gives too much emphasis to the reader (pg. 165). This distorts the view
of the interconnected relationship between writing and reading “by oversimplifying the
act of making meaning through written discourse” (pg. 156). From this, they conclude in
their alternative formula that a combination of audience addressed, and audience invoked,
is the best method for gaining a complete understanding of the role of the audience in
writing studies as well as the specific writing studies concept, the rhetorical situation, as
audience changes across different situations. Phillip Shaw’s (2009) chapter connects with
Ede and Lunsford’s concept of audience in the rhetorical situation. They argue a
writer’s discourse is shaped by the audience they address and/or invoke. Shaw’s point
that a disinterested genre reviewer utilizes specific discourse that shows respect for the
audience, but at the same time gives critical feedback, connects to Ede and Lunsford’s
argument; the reviewer’s evaluation, whether positive or negative, contains language that
was constrained by the audience they wrote for in order to achieve their exigencies.
From there, the feedback the academic reviewer receives, while not necessarily
affecting the current review discussed, may have an impact on future reviews written by
the reviewer. Audience addressed and invoked will supplement my analysis of the film
critic reviews as well as the consumer feedback as it gives good detail into how the
physical audience the writer addresses and/or fictionalized audience a writer envisions
plays an important role in the interaction of a writer’s text with their audience and the
feedback the audience gives. This will impact a critic’s ethos with their audience as they
attempt to establish roles that will be appropriate for the audience they are writing
towards. Ede and Lunsford point out in the article that writers commonly use specific
discourse that reflects the expectations of the audience they are addressing. This will be
an important point for my research as my analysis will focus on the lexis a critic uses, and
the specific ways they utilize it, in order to get the desired response from their audience.
Furthermore, I will be able to look at how the audience chooses to assume the roles the
critic has established based on the feedback they give which will provide me with insight
as to how the critic’s review impacted their desire to see the film. Ultimately, the
consumer audience in the community I am analyzing play an important role in shaping
how a critic writes their review, which the critic can choose to listen or ignore, helping
me to determine whether the critic maintains consistent credibility across their
reviews, only in certain genres, or not at all.

Grant-Davie, K. (1997). Rhetorical situations and their constituents. In E. Wardle & D. Downs
(Eds.). Writing about Writing: A college reader (pp. 484-507). Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins.

Grant-Davie’s article deals with an extension on the definition of the rhetorical situation,
breaking down the components and expanding the definition of what the rhetorical
situation is. He goes into detail about each component including the rhetors, audience,
 Cabrera 7

exigence, and constraints which are unique across each situation. He discusses exigence
reveals what the discourse is about, why it is needed, and what it accomplishes (pgs. 490-
494). Furthermore, he addresses the two types of audiences that rhetor(s) address in their
writing that Ede and Lunsford researched—audience addressed, and audience invoked.
Audience addressed deals with the actual audience rhetor(s) are writing for while the
invoked audience is the one they are thinking about as they write which helps shape their
exigence. He argues these two audiences establish roles that are dynamic and are
connected between writers and readers; because of this, rhetorical situations are
experienced by both, writers and readers (pg. 499). Finally, he covers constraints, which
are factors that limit a rhetor in a rhetorical situation but are not always limited in a
negative context. He concludes that all of the parts that make up the rhetorical situation
can have interactions that are noticeable through analyzing the texts a discourse
community utilizes. Cherry’s article on ethos and persona fit in with Grant-Davie’s
rhetorical situation as certain components of the rhetorical situation play a role in shaping
a writer’s ethos. As Cherry mentions a writer’s ethos is built by their ability to
demonstrate competence, knowledge, and good will with their audience, the rhetorical
situation helps shape all three parts of ethos. The rhetor must have an exigence or
exigencies when writing their text which can often come from the audience, and so, if
they are to build their ethos they must meet the exigencies their audience creates as well
as the ones they create. Secondly, as mentioned, the audience shapes the rhetor’s
exigence and how he or she writes, therefore establishing constraints the rhetor follows
which aids in them establishing credibility. Cherry’s distinction of persona comes into
play here as sometimes the writer must assume a new role in their text that is appropriate
for the audience they are writing for. If a writer meets all of these components, it
contributes to their ethos in each rhetorical situation because writers must continue to
maintain their credibility across new audiences and not simply rely on their previous
work to ensure credibility. For example, if the critic was writing a review on a horror
movie, the tone in their text should appear different from a review they wrote on a
romantic movie; by adapting to different situations, they demonstrate they are able to
write for different audiences. Grant-Davie’s article will be useful when I analyze the
critic reviews and consumer feedback as the rhetorical situation will help me figure out
how well a review was written by looking for the specific areas where they accomplish
their exigence, properly address their audience, and work within their constraints. This
will help not only determine the credibility the reviewer holds, but also whether or not
their review impacted the audience in some way.

Johns, A. (1997). Discourse communities and communities of practice. In E. Wardle & D.

Downs (Eds.). Writing about Writing: A college reader (pp. 319-338). Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins.

In this article, Ann Johns focuses on the similarities and differences between discourse
communities and communities of practice by looking at the characteristics of both and
using real world examples; she differentiates a discourse community from a community
of practice by defining a discourse community as one that focuses on language and texts,
genres and lexis that enable members throughout the world to maintain their goals,
communicate with each other, and regulate membership. A community of practice is
 Cabrera 8

defined as one that relates to genres and lexis but focuses more on practices and values
that members have that either keep the communities together or separate them from each
other (pg. 321). Her ultimate goal is for students to understand the aspects of a
community (specifically academic communities)—how members use text and
language to accomplish their community’s goals, why they are a part of a community,
how they communicate, the conflicts involved in them, and more. By being able to
analyze these aspects, Johns believes students will be able to better understand the skills
necessary for them to fit as members in academic communities (pg. 338). Looking at
Grant- Davie’s (1997) article on the rhetorical situation, his definitions for the
components that make up the rhetorical situation can be applied to John’s ideas behind
discourse communities and communities of practice. The rhetorical situation can be
applied across all communities’ literate activities, allowing for analyzation of their
differing goals, values, and language that makes each one different, as well as
determine the type of community it is (discourse or community of practice). Since
discourse communities focus on particular goals, the exigence of their texts and
particular lexis can help reveal the goals they have and distinguish them from a
community of practice which may have goals, but also exists due to a common interest
among members. Ultimately, the rhetorical situation helps answer the questions Johns
poses in her article about how members interact in a community, why they are
involved, and the issues present in them. John’s article can aid in my research as the
community I am analyzing can be viewed as both, a discourse community and a
community of practice. When looking at the film critics, the community is a discourse
community as they share specific goals they try to achieve with their audience through
their writing. Contrastingly, the consumers involved in the community would fit
together as a community of practice as they share a variety of interests in the community,
and do not necessarily focus on the same goals as the critics do. Because of this, critics
must use particular lexis that enables them to follow many of the same conventions
Johns discusses in her article, such as using explicit language, transitions between
points, and remaining rubber-gloved (objective) in their review in order to maintain
credibility with their audience.

Shaw, P. (2009). The lexis and grammar of explicit evaluation in academic book reviews, 1913
and 1993. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.). Academic Evaluation: Review genres in
university settings [ProQuest Ebook Central] (pp. 217-233). London: Palgrave Macmillan
UK. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/auth/lib/fjpw/login.action?returnURL=https%3A%2F
%2Febookcentral.proquest.com%2Flib%2Ffjpw%2Fhome.action

In this book chapter, Phillip Shaw describes the specific lexis prominent in academic
book reviews that indicate whether the overall review is a positive evaluation or a
negative evaluation. More specifically, he analyzes what parts of speech in regard to lexis
are more commonly used in a positive review versus those used in a negative review. He
examines how an academic reviewer is able to inherit a disinterested (objective)
standpoint in their review in order to maintain their credibility as a genuine reviewer to
their readers. He shows how the specific lexis used by reviewers helps indicate how their
 Cabrera 9

viewpoints remain objective but also helps them identify with their readers to maintain a
level of politeness to them as well as to the author of the book. From this, he is trying to
achieve a distinction in review genres by separating those that are interested reviews
(those that have emotion and a desire to sell something) and those that are disinterested
(pg. 217). Based on his research, he concluded that adjectives, verbs, and nouns are the
most common types of lexis found in review genres, from greatest usage to least, and
positive reviews more often engage with adjectives while negative ones utilize verbs
more. Ultimately, in order to remain a disinterested reviewer, one has to balance their
review by using specific language that adds and detracts praise in a positive review as
well as disapproval in negative reviews in order to be a polite reviewer, but more
importantly to show good judgement (pg. 233). Shaw’s work connects with John’s
article, specifically on the conventions in academic communities, especially the points
about text needing to be explicit, and writers remaining rubber-gloved. As John’s points
out that the values of a community are dependent on the type of community it is and what
is necessary for it to accomplish its goals. Shaw’s focus is on academic book reviewers
which would be considered an academic discourse community. The conventions Johns
discussed were addressed towards academic communities, and as such, would apply to
Shaw’s focus on academic book reviewers, which includes making their writing explicit
as well as remain objective in order to qualify as a disinterested genre reviewer. This
book chapter can help me with my research as it deals with the specific lexis used by
reviewers. The author here points out that specific lexis can reveal whether an evaluator’s
(critic’s) review has real substance by seeing whether their review is well-balanced and
honest. The same thing can be applied to a film critic’s review. Using this author’s points
about specific lexis that is prominent in a positive or negative evaluation, I can apply
them in a film critic’s review by analyzing to see if they overuse a particular type of lexis
that makes them appear overly gracious to a film, hypercritical, or well-balanced, which
then adds or detracts to their credibility.