English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Academic weblogs are a new form of scholarly communication which provides both a space for researchers to present their ideas, observations, and reactions to others' work and a discussion forum. Although evaluation has been shown to play a prominent role in academic discourse, the function of this rhetorical device in academic blogs has not yet been studied. As part of an attempt to address this issue, the present study is aimed at identifying the types and frequency of evaluative adjectives in academic blogs and at analyzing their role in this genre. For this purpose, I adopt Thompson and Hunston's (2000: 5) definition of evaluation as “the expression of the speaker or writer's attitude or stance towards, a viewpoint on, or feelings about the entities or propositions that he or she is talking about.” The study is based on the exploration of a corpus of weblog entries and comments taken from ten different academic blogs. The results show that evaluative adjectives are rhetorically used by participants in these blogs for two purposes: (i) to construct their identity both as knowledgeable researchers and competent academic bloggers; (ii) to build and sustain solidarity relations with other members of the community and signal their allegiances.

“Your argument is wrong”: a contribution to the study of evaluation in academic weblogs