Minority Themes in Academic Discourse: A Corpus-Based Approach  to History and Law Book Reviews

LENG HONG ANG; MENGYU HE

doi:10.17576/gema-2026-2603-10

Minority Themes in Academic Discourse: A Corpus-Based Approach to History and Law Book Reviews

LENG HONG ANG, MENGYU HE

Abstract

This study examines how minority themes are presented in academic book reviews in the disciplines of History and Law through a corpus-based approach. Although previous studies have examined the evaluative and rhetorical features of academic book reviews, less attention has been given to how minority themes are foregrounded and framed across disciplines. Addressing this gap, the study compares the distribution of minority-related keywords in History and Law book reviews and examines their phraseological profiles through concordance analysis to determine how these themes are expressed and evaluated in context. The findings show noticeable disciplinary differences. In History book reviews, race, gender, and native identities are more prominent, often in discussions of historiographical critique and efforts to recover voices and experiences marginalized in dominant historical narratives. In Law book reviews, greater attention is given to indigenous rights, migration, refugees and asylum, reflecting stronger concerns with legal frameworks, institutional responsibility, and rights-based responses to contemporary social issues. At the same time, both disciplines share concerns with minority, marginality, and colonialism, suggesting common engagement with questions of equity, exclusion, and postcolonial legacies, although these are approached from different disciplinary perspectives. The phraseological profiles further show that similar minority themes can be framed differently according to disciplinary priorities. Overall, the study demonstrates that academic book reviews provide an important space for examining how disciplinary communities foreground, frame, and evaluate minority issues.

Keywords: book reviews; History; Law; minority themes; corpus-based approach

Kajian ini meneliti bagaimana tema minoriti dipaparkan dalam ulasan buku akademik dalam disiplin Sejarah dan Undang-undang melalui pendekatan berasaskan korpus. Walaupun kajian terdahulu telah meneliti ciri penilaian dan retorik dalam ulasan buku akademik, perhatian yang diberikan terhadap cara tema minoriti ditonjolkan dan dibingkaikan merentas disiplin masih terhad. Bagi menangani jurang ini, kajian ini membandingkan taburan kata kunci berkaitan minoriti dalam ulasan buku Sejarah dan Undang-undang serta meneliti profil frasaologinya melalui analisis konkordans untuk mengenal pasti bagaimana tema tersebut diungkapkan dan dinilai mengikut konteks. Dapatan menunjukkan perbezaan yang ketara antara kedua-dua disiplin. Dalam ulasan buku Sejarah, tema berkaitan kaum, gender dan identiti peribumi lebih menonjol, khususnya dalam perbincangan tentang kritikan historiografi serta usaha mengetengahkan semula suara dan pengalaman yang terpinggir dalam naratif sejarah yang dominan. Sebaliknya, ulasan buku Undang-undang memberikan perhatian yang lebih besar kepada hak masyarakat peribumi, migrasi, pelarian dan suaka, yang mencerminkan tumpuan terhadap kerangka perundangan, tanggungjawab institusi dan pendekatan berasaskan hak dalam menangani isu sosial semasa. Pada masa yang sama, kedua-dua disiplin berkongsi perhatian terhadap isu minoriti, peminggiran dan kolonialisme, yang menunjukkan keterlibatan bersama dalam persoalan kesaksamaan, pengecualian dan warisan pascakolonial, walaupun isu tersebut ditangani daripada perspektif disiplin yang berbeza. Profil frasaologi turut menunjukkan bahawa tema minoriti yang serupa boleh dibingkaikan secara berbeza mengikut keutamaan setiap disiplin. Secara keseluruhannya, kajian ini menunjukkan bahawa ulasan buku akademik merupakan ruang penting untuk meneliti bagaimana komuniti disiplin menonjolkan, membingkaikan dan menilai isu berkaitan minoriti.

Kata Kunci:ulasan buku; Sejarah; Undang-undang; tema minoriti; pendekatan berasaskan korpus

Keywords

book reviews; History; Law; minority themes; corpus-based approach

Full Text:

PDF

References

Agresti, A. (2018). Statistical methods for the social sciences (5th ed.). Pearson.

Ang, L. H., & He, M. (2025). Framing the marginalised: An analysis of themes in History and Sociology book reviews. 3L the Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 31(3), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.17576/3l-2025-3103-29

Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.1.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software

Banks, N. (2019). Black women’s labor market history reveals deep-seated race and gender discrimination. Economic Policy Institute.

Bhatia, V. K. (2017). Critical genre analysis: Investigating interdiscursive performance in professional practice. Routledge.

Breisach, E. (2007). Historiography: Ancient, medieval and modern (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Cheng, C. (2014). A contrastive study of English and Chinese book reviews on linguistics: Perspective of attitudinal meanings. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1009–1016.

Crenshaw, K. W. (2002). The first decade: Critical reflections. In F. Valdes, J. M. Culp, & A. P. Harris (Eds.), Crossroads, directions, and a new critical race theory. Temple University Press.

Delgado, R. (1984). The imperial scholar: Reflections on a review of civil rights literature. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132(3), 561–578.

Deo, M. E. (2019). Unequal profession: Race and gender in legal academia. Stanford University Press.

Ferris, D. (2019). Guiding junior scholars into and through the publication process. In P. Habibie & K. Hyland (Eds.), Novice writers and scholarly publication (pp. 215–231). Palgrave Macmillan.

Groom, N. (2009). Phraseology and epistemology in academic book reviews: A corpus-driven analysis of two humanities disciplines. In K. Hyland & G. Diani (Eds.), Academic Evaluation (pp. 122–139). Palgrave Macmillan.

Hamdan, H., Bellot, P., & Bechet, F. (2016). Sentiment analysis in scholarly book reviews. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.01595.

Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across the disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194–1207.

Hérubel, J.-P. V. M. (2008). Historical scholarship, periodization, themes, and specialization: implications for research and publication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1353/scp.2008.0005

Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.

Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins.

Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. Longman.

Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.

Hyland, K., & Diani, G. (Eds.). (2009). Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. Palgrave Macmillan.

Jiang, F. K., & Hyland, K. (2024). Writing book reviews: Perceptions and experiences of Chinese novice scholars. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 71, Article 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101409

Junqueira, L. (2013). A genre-based investigation of applied linguistics book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(3), 203–213.

Karunakaran, T., & Ang, L. H. (2025). Metadiscourse and persuasion in expert-written online product reviews. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 25(2), 544–563. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2025-2502-13

Klaibanmai, K. (2021). Interpersonal Aspects of Academic Book Reviews: A Thai-English Comparison. Doctoral dissertation, University of Huddersfield.

Lee Y. H, B., & Ang L. H. (2024). Interpersonal metadiscourse: Changing patterns in linguistics book reviews. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 24(2), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2024-2402-05

Lindholm-Romantschuk, Y. (1998). Scholarly book reviewing in the social sciences and humanities: The flow of ideas within and among disciplines. Greenwood Press.

Liu, W., Ding, Y., & Gu, M. (2016). Book reviews in academic journals: Patterns and dynamics. Scientometrics, 109(2), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2172-2

Liu, X., & Zhu, H. (2024). The diachronic change in linguistic positivity in the academic book reviewing of language studies: a text-mining analysis. Scientometrics, 130(1), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05208-8

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Motta-Roth, D. (1998). Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: a study of text and disciplinary cultures. In J. Francisco Coll, I. Fortanet, J. Carlos Palmer & S. Posteguillo (Eds.), Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes (pp. 29–58). Universidad Jaume I Servicio De.

Murtagh, F., & Contreras, P. (2012). Algorithms for hierarchical clustering: An overview. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2(1), 86–97.

Römer, U. (2010). Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type. English Text Construction, 3(1), 95–119.

Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: Language, corpus and discourse. Routledge.

Spier, T. E. (2024). Academic book reviews: Who’s writing and citing what in linguistics? Romanian Journal of English Studies, 21(1), 1–22.

Stowe, S. (1991). Thinking about reviews. The Journal of American History, 78(2), 592–593.

Suárez, L., & Moreno, A. I. (2008). The rhetorical structure of academic book reviews of literature. In U. Connor, E. Nagelhout & W. Rozycki (Eds.), Contrastive rhetoric: Reaching to intercultural rhetoric (pp. 147–168). John Benjamins.

Thompson, G., & Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text (pp. 1–27). Oxford University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Palgrave Macmillan.

Vassileva, I. (2022). An ‘academic war’ – A case study of confrontation in academia. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 57, 101115.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2026-2603-10