human sciences

Researching is considered one of the functional needs of the scientific community. However, this field of study is faced with a series of issues, such as the dismissal of the concept of critique as only a secondary phenomenon and the lack of a methodological perspective while dealing with the concept of critique. Thereby, after having an overview of the topic of literary and art criticism, this paper will attempt to argue that in the background of the discussion, the elements of “methodic critique” are ignored. Then, to distinguish the characteristics of methodic critique from that of subjective and non-academic critique, the eight elements of methodic critique will be explained in detail, which include: 1. Systematicity, 2. Model-orientedness, 3. Comprehensiveness, 4. Critical perspective, 5. Having philosophical basis, 6. Expert-orientedness, 7. Creativity, and 8. Being ethical. Undoubtedly, reaching a “(comprehensive) theory of critique in the field of humanities” necessitates an explanation of the necessities, definitions, and characteristics of the concept of methodic critique as avoiding the shortcomings of the study of critique in the field of humanities is impossible without a “theory of critique.”

Lexical bundles are recurrent multi-word sequences that play a crucial role in academic discourse. This article presents an analysis of lexical bundles in book reviews across the disciplines of human and natural sciences. Drawing from a corpus of 737 book reviews, the study investigates the functional roles and structural patterns of these recurrent linguistic units. The research aims to bridge a gap in the literature by exploring how lexical bundles vary across disciplines. Employing a quantitative-qualitative approach, the study first quantitatively identifies the most common 4-word lexical bundles and compares their distribution between the two disciplines. The researchers then qualitatively analyzed the context in which these bundles are used, observing that they often serve to refer to or evaluate the structure, content, audience, or scope of the book under review. Findings reveal that while both human and natural sciences book reviews share some lexical bundles, they exhibit variations in their distribution, structures, and functions. Notably, natural sciences book reviews employ a greater frequency of lexical bundles signaling an evaluative context, particularly contexts related to the assessment of a book. The study also uncovers differences in the structural preferences of lexical bundles between the two disciplines. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of the genre-specific utilization of lexical bundles and underscores their role in conveying evaluative meaning in scholarly discourse. Furthermore, the study suggests avenues for further exploration, providing a foundation for future investigations into the intricate interplay between linguistic features and disciplinary preferences.