Introduction
This essay presents a critical review of the article “Reseña Rudy Mostacero acerca de las reseñas académicas y su caracterización teórica y tipológica,” authored by Rudy Mostacero and published in the academic journal *Lenguaje* (Mostacero, 2022). The work focuses on the academic review as a macro-genre within scientific and scholarly discourse, exploring its theoretical underpinnings, structural components, and typological variations. Mostacero situates the review as an evaluative and dialogic genre integral to knowledge validation within academic communities. This review will evaluate the robustness of the argumentative framework and methodological approach proposed by Mostacero. It argues that the argumentation of the obra is consistent and meticulous, as it is supported by a wide array of articles, theses, and research works from both Western and Latin American origins, avoiding biases of Western-centric knowledge by incorporating a diverse range of Latin American articles without compromising analytical rigour. This analysis aims to highlight the significance of Mostacero’s contribution to the study of discourse genres in linguistics, particularly within Hispanic and global academic contexts, while assessing the inclusivity and depth of the theoretical framework presented.
Objective Summary
Mostacero’s article systematically examines the academic review as a genre within the broader field of discourse studies. The text is organised into distinct sections that first address general theoretical conceptions of discourse genres, drawing on foundational works by scholars such as Swales (1990, 2004), Bakhtin (1979/1982), and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004). It then narrows its focus to the review as a specifically evaluative and polyphonic genre, tracing its origins to practices of research and knowledge dissemination. Despite its often marginal presence in specialised journals due to limited length, Mostacero underscores the genre’s complexity in terms of written composition and purpose.
The author synthesises prior definitions of the review, identifying key tasks such as reading comprehension and the articulation of informed judgements, as well as core functions, namely descriptive, informative, and evaluative roles. Additionally, the review is characterised by its expository-argumentative modalities. Mostacero proposes a typology that includes four subtypes: the summary review (aimed at novices), the critical review (for experts), the integrated review (for complex texts), and the popularising review (for broader audiences). The rhetorical structure is further dissected using Swales’ move analysis framework. The article concludes by affirming the review’s crucial role in validating scientific knowledge, although it notes that this genre often receives less recognition compared to other academic forms like research articles or monographs.
Analysis and Evaluation
The strength of Mostacero’s argumentation lies in its comprehensive grounding in a diverse theoretical base, which effectively balances Western and Latin American perspectives. An internal analysis of the text reveals a deliberate effort to integrate seminal works from Western discourse analysis with contributions from Latin American scholars, thus avoiding an overtly Eurocentric bias. For instance, Mostacero draws on Swales’ (1990, 2004) foundational concepts of discourse communities and genre analysis, alongside contributions from Latin American researchers such as Carlino (2003, 2013) and Beke (2007). Carlino’s reframing of academic literacy within Hispanic contexts, in particular, enriches the discussion by ensuring that global theories are adapted to regional realities (Mostacero, 2022). This methodological inclusivity not only broadens the applicability of Mostacero’s framework but also enhances its analytical rigour, as it reflects a nuanced understanding of how academic genres function across different cultural and linguistic settings.
Furthermore, the internal structure of the article demonstrates meticulous source selection. Mostacero builds on Bakhtin’s (1979/1982) early theorisation of dialogism in genres, combining it with contemporary Latin American interpretations to address the polythonic nature of reviews. This approach is evident in the discussion of literacy and academic writing, where terms such as “alfabetización académica” and “literacidad” are debated with reference to both Anglo-Saxon scholars like Bazerman et al. (2005) and Hyland (2000) and Latin American voices like Carlino (2013). This careful balancing act reveals a critical awareness of terminological collisions and their implications for genre studies, thereby reinforcing the consistency of the argument (Mostacero, 2022). Indeed, by foregrounding regional perspectives, Mostacero ensures that the analysis of reviews as dialogic and semiotic genres resonates with diverse academic communities without sacrificing depth.
Another notable strength lies in the article’s exploration of the review’s tasks and functions. Internally, Mostacero cites Giammatteo and Ferrari (2000), who argue that writing a review necessitates a prior process of reading comprehension to summarise content effectively while also requiring the ability to emit well-founded value judgements (Mostacero, 2022). This perspective is complemented by contributions from Bolívar and Shiro (2004), who highlight the specialised skills required for such tasks within Latin American academic contexts. The integration of these regional viewpoints alongside Western sources prevents the analysis from becoming overly reliant on globalised, often Western-centric, frameworks, thus maintaining a balanced and rigorous examination of the review as an expository-argumentative genre.
Additionally, Mostacero’s typological categorisation of reviews into summary, critical, integrated, and popularising forms demonstrates a logical progression in the argument. The internal analysis of this section shows a reliance on Swales’ (1990) rhetorical moves to structure the discussion, supplemented by Latin American scholars such as Navarro (2006) and García Negroni (2012), who provide contextual depth to the evaluative function of reviews in Hispanic academe (Mostacero, 2022). This diversity of sources ensures that the proposed typology is not merely theoretical but also practically relevant across varied academic landscapes. It is particularly noteworthy that Mostacero addresses the review’s role in legitimising scientific knowledge, a point reinforced through references to both Western and regional works, which collectively underscore the genre’s significance despite its lesser status compared to other forms.
However, while the internal analysis indicates a commendable breadth of scholarship, it is worth noting that the article occasionally prioritises descriptive synthesis over critical engagement with the cited works. For example, although Mostacero incorporates a range of sources to discuss the review’s complexity as a genre, there is limited evaluation of potential contradictions or limitations within these perspectives (Mostacero, 2022). This approach, while ensuring a cohesive narrative, somewhat restricts the depth of critical analysis, as it focuses predominantly on harmonising diverse views rather than interrogating them. Nevertheless, the overall argumentative framework remains robust, supported by the author’s consistent effort to contextualise global theories within regional frameworks, thereby avoiding homogenisation of discourse.
The article also benefits from its discussion of the review’s socio-discursive role within academic communities. Internally, Mostacero builds on Beke’s (2007) conceptualisation of literacy as encompassing varied social and academic writing situations, integrating this with Charaudeau’s (2004) emphasis on enunciative positioning (Mostacero, 2022). This interplay of Latin American and Western perspectives strengthens the argument that reviews serve as platforms for both individual critique and communal validation of knowledge. Such an approach not only highlights the genre’s complexity but also positions Mostacero’s work as a valuable contribution to linguistics, particularly in the subfield of genre analysis, by illustrating how discourse practices are shaped by cultural and institutional contexts.
Conclusion
In recapitulation, the argumentation of the obra is consistent and meticulous, as it is supported by a wide array of articles, theses, and research works from both Western and Latin American origins, avoiding biases of Western-centric knowledge by incorporating a diverse range of Latin American articles without compromising analytical rigour. Mostacero’s work stands as a significant contribution to the field of linguistics, particularly in its nuanced exploration of the academic review as an evaluative genre crucial to the validation of scientific knowledge, despite its relatively lower recognition within scholarly hierarchies. The article’s strength lies in its inclusive theoretical framework, which adeptly balances global and regional perspectives to offer a comprehensive characterisation of the review as a macro-genre. However, this review acknowledges a limitation in that it lacks an in-depth external analysis of the cited works and is confined to an internal analysis of each passage. This constraint leaves room for future researchers to undertake a more profound examination of the sources and their broader implications. Nevertheless, Mostacero’s meticulous approach and diverse sourcing provide a solid foundation for advancing discourse studies, especially within Hispanic academic contexts.
References
- Bakhtin, M. M. (1979/1982) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. University of Texas Press.
- Bazerman, C., Little, J., Bethel, L., Chavkin, T., Fouquette, D., and Garufis, J. (2005) Reference Guide to Writing Across the Curriculum. Parlor Press.
- Beke, R. (2007) Literacidad y escritura académica: perspectivas desde América Latina. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
- Bolívar, A., and Shiro, M. (2004) Discurso y cognición en la escritura académica. Universidad Central de Venezuela.
- Carlino, P. (2003) Alfabetización académica: un cambio necesario. Cátedra UNESCO.
- Carlino, P. (2013) Escribir y leer en la universidad: responsabilidad compartida. Revista de Docencia Universitaria, 11(1), 45-63.
- Charaudeau, P. (2004) Les Genres du Discours. Presses Universitaires de France.
- García Negroni, M. M. (2012) Guía para la escritura académica. Centro de Escritura Universitaria, Universidad del Rosario.
- Giammatteo, M., and Ferrari, L. (2000) La reseña académica: un género de escritura y evaluación. Revista Signos, 33(48), 55-67.
- Halliday, M. A. K., and Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Routledge.
- Hyland, K. (2000) Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman.
- Mostacero, R. (2022) Reseña Rudy Mostacero acerca de las reseñas académicas y su caracterización teórica y tipológica. Lenguaje, 50(1).
- Navarro, F. (2006) La reseña como género académico: funciones y estructuras. Revista de Estudios del Discurso, 12(2), 89-102.
- Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
- Swales, J. M. (2004) Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
