Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Data/Theory Enregisterment
References
All Topics
Anthropology
Anthropological Theory

Science Talk and Scientific Reference

Profile image of Matthew WolfgramMatthew Wolfgram
https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ANTHRO-102214-014019
visibility

…

description

15 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

This review of research literature on the language practices associated with the production and circulation of scientific knowledge documents four discourse-ideological processes: data/theory enregisterment, objectification, visualization, and entextualization. I argue that these processes cause the stabilization of scientific reference by imposing a conventionalist language ideology that opposes language and the objective reality of the world that it references.

Related papers

Talking Science: Content, Conflict, and Semantics
Jay L Lemke

One of the greatest obstacles to mastery of science and other analytical genres in school is excessive curricular emphasis on reading and hearing those genres without practice at speaking and writing them. In science, the curriculum tends to insure that only students with privileged social and linguistic backgrounds master the genre structures through which the thematic-semantic content of the subject is taught. Value conflicts between social groups and between technical elites and lay communities underlie the resistance of many students to mastering academic modes of discourse. To equalize educational opportunity between social groups, genre structures, content, and thematic formations should be explicitly analyzed and taught in each academic discipline. (Author/MSE)

View PDFchevron_right
Language change in scientific discourse
Monica Randaccio

Journal of Science Communication, 2004

Halliday has demonstrated that changes in discourse function covary with changes in the grammatical resources a language makes available to construe discourse. Specifically, he outlined the ways in which nominalisation evolved as a resource for construing scientific reality as a world of logical relations among abstract entities. In the present article,

View PDFchevron_right
KNOWLEDGE, DISCOURSE AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION
Teun A van Dijk

In this communication we present some fragments of a new, multidisciplinary theory of knowledge as certified shared beliefs of epistemic communities and a typology of knowledge and epistemic communities, including scientific communities and the public as a whole, as a basis for a multidisciplinary study of popularization discourse. Besides transformations between different types of knowledge, popularization also involves recontextualization of knowledge from scientific to everyday knowledge. In a study conducted with Helena Calsamiglia, we analyzed press reports in Spanish newspaper El País about the presentation of the completion of the sequencing of the human genome and found that popularization not only features the usual discursive means of new knowledge introduction (such as definitions and metaphors), but also a limited set of fixed categories such as Location, Composition, Type, Size and Number, which link old with new knowledge. It is assumed that these categories are expres...

View PDFchevron_right
A crisis of authority in scientific discourse
Marcia Nichols

Cultural Studies of Science Education

Scientific training often begins with learning content knowledge and techniques. As a student progresses, they are required to communicate the results of their experiments with their instructors in a manner that other scientists would understand. This style of communication is stressed throughout their entire training. But what happens when the need arises to communicate with interested nonscientific audiences? Scientific discourse has typically been considered what philosopher of language Mikhail Bakhtin termed an "authoritative discourse,"-a discourse that "binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to persuade us internally," whose hegemony is traditionally a priori, unquestioned. However, within the public realm, that authority is in crisis. There is an unsettling rise of anti-scientific counter-discourses such as the anti-vaccine movement, the growing Flat Earth movement, climate change denialism, and a host of other "movements" grounded in either pseudo-science or an outright dismissal of scientific authority. In response to this crisis, scientists and educators have called for more attention to improving scientific literacy among the general public. By examining the generic conventions of scientific discourse using the theories of Mikhail Bakhtin, we hope to point out some of the barriers causing the current crisis in scientific authority.

View PDFchevron_right
Science What? What Concepts are we using? An analysis of official concepts in science communication (2016)
Alexandre Schiele

Actes des sessions du colloque (Proceedings of the Conference’s Sessions) Science&You 2015, 2022

Science&You aims to be an international conference on the topic of «the mediation of science» and, judging from the previous events, it will undoubtedly succeed. However, international participants, and not only the speakers, bring with them concepts, both name and definition, to tackle the question of the mediation of science. These concepts might even fall within the naming and definition conventions of their respective area of upbringing, study and work. Thus, when giving a talk or simply being part of an audience when such a talk is given, they will speak and pay attention within theses conventions. Thus, our French colleagues will talk of «Culture scientifique»; Anglo-Saxons of «Science literacy», «science communication» and «Public Understanding of Science»; Chinese of «Science popularization»; Indians of «Science Temper» etc. Even if we assume that all these names reflect a single paradigm, how is it then that none has gained consensus globally, especially since the question of the mediation of science is already a 50 years old project? Why is it that no consensus can be reached around a single name when drafting a document with international participation? Then, can we reasonably assume that they all reflect a single definition? This talk aims at specifying the different naming conventions by referring to source documents in order to confirm or infirm whether all these names refer to a single paradigm.

View PDFchevron_right
DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF POPULAR SCIENCE DISCOURSE
Nurken A . Aubakir, RS Global

Lately the linguistic world has been using the term discourse very often. However, there is a room for discussion when it comes defining the term. The given article examines the opinions of eastern and western scholars on discourse studies in general and popular science discourse in particular. The distinctive features of the popular science discourse and difference between the pure scientific and popular science discourse are revealed.

View PDFchevron_right
Standardization, Power, and Purity: Ideological Tensions in Language and Scientific Discourse
Education Sciences

Intellectual preferences often align with the broader concept of standardization. The centralizing tendency observed in the sciences mirrors the patterns seen in linguistic standardization, such as the establishment of standard dialects in diverse speech communities. In both cases, there is a deliberate disregard for the complexities of the "lower" systems within the hierarchy and an exaggerated belief in the purity of the dominant system. The process of language standardization involves minimizing linguistic variation, often leading to the marginalization of non-standard varieties and reinforcing social hierarchies by privileging certain forms of language, which can restrict access to opportunities and institutional authority. The hierarchical tendencies observed in both scientific disciplines and linguistic standardization reflect a broader intellectual preference for centralized, "pure" systems, often at the expense of diversity and complexity. This paper explores the relationship between linguistic and scientific standardization, highlighting their influence on knowledge, authority, and social structures. Focusing on the global use of Greco-Latin scientific terminology, it examines both the practical advantages and cultural implications of standardized scientific language. While proponents emphasize its unifying role, critics argue it threatens linguistic purity and cultural identity. Through historical and contemporary debates, the paper argues that standardization serves as both a tool for communication and a contested space reflecting ideological tensions about language, culture, and knowledge. Topics include the politics of language standardization, the globalization of scientific vocabulary, debates on the interlingual lexicon, and the conflict between global communication and Arabic language preservation.

View PDFchevron_right
Linguistic reference in science : problems and progress
Alexis De Tiège

2016

The crucial role that mathematical notation systems have played in the success of the hard or mathematical sciences is well known and richly documented: the origin of the history of these sophisticated notation systems more or less coincides with the birth of modern science. The role of our linguistic notation systems (as applied to, or used in, the scientific study of nature), by contrast, is hardly documented at all, at least not in a systematic way. We distinguish between (metaphorical and non-metaphorical) meta-scientific terms and scientific terms and, as far as the latter is concerned, between methodology and content terms. It is the latter sort of terms that interest us here. Five different dysfunctions in the relationship between scientific linguistic tokens and their referents will be presented and illustrated: scientific terms or phrases can not only be imprecise, they can also be meaningless, indiscriminate, inapt and ambiguous. By correcting or alleviating such dysfuncti...

View PDFchevron_right
Lexical Features of Scientific Discourse
Tatjana Rusko

Santalka, 2014

Currently, a lot of emphasis is placed of the ability of a person to successfully communicate in any sphere of activity, which along with upbringing and education is among the factors that determine a person's culture. In the context of rapid scientific and technological progress, it is vital to constantly exchange relevant information. The effectiveness of this process relies not only on the proficient knowledge of the subject and the ability to make grammatically correct sentences, but to a large extent on the level of competence in scientific language. The present article attempts to consider the interaction of discourse and vocabulary, different types of cognitive phenomena responsible for the use of a language in real time and related to the language as a means of storing and organising information. Analysing and classifying some key elements of a scientific discourse lexicon contributes to the development of certain provisions of lexicology, functional stylistics, cognitive linguistics and terminology. The results of the analysis may be advantageous both to linguistics and teaching the language for specific purposes.

View PDFchevron_right
Review Essay: Object Lessons: Recent Work in the Rhetoric of Science
Jordynn Jack

Quarterly Journal of Speech, 2010

View PDFchevron_right

References (33)

  1. LITERATURE CITED Bazerman C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press Benveniste E. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics, Vol. 3, transl. ME Meek. Coral Gables, FL: Univ. Miami Press Briggs CL. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  2. Duranti A. 2010. Linguistic anthropology: language as a non-neutral medium. In The Cambridge Handbook of Socio-Linguistics, ed. R Mesthrie, p. 3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  3. Eagleton T. 1991. Ideology: An Introduction, Vol. 9. London: Verso Franklin S. 1995. Science as culture, cultures of science. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 24:163-84
  4. Gilbert GN, Mulkay MJ. 1984. Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  5. Gillespie MA. 2008. The Theological Origins of Modernity. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Goodwin C. 1994. Professional vision. Am. Anthropol. 96(3):606-33
  6. Goodwin C. 1995. Seeing in depth. Soc. Stud. Sci. 25(2):237-74
  7. Greiffenhagen C. 2014. The materiality of mathematics: presenting mathematics at the blackboard. Br. J. Sociol. 65(3):502-28
  8. Greiffenhagen C, Mair M, Sharrock W. 2015. Methodological troubles as problems and phenomena: eth- nomethodology and the question of "method" in the social sciences. Br. J. Sociol. 66(3):460-85
  9. Halliday MAK, Martin JR. 2003. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Taylor and Francis Irvine JT, Gal S. 2009. Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader, ed. A Duranti, pp. 402-34. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Jakobson R. 1990. On Language, ed. LR Waugh, M Monville-Burston. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Peterson JC, Pinch T, eds. 2001. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Keane W. 2003. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Lang. Commun. 23(3):409-25
  10. Kuipers J. 2013. Evidence and authority in ethnographic and linguistic perspective. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 42:399-413
  11. Kuipers JC. 1990. Power in Performance: The Creation of Textual Authority in Weyewa Ritual Speech. Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press Latour B. 1986. Visualization and cognition: drawing things together. In Knowledge Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, ed. H Kulick, E Long, pp. 1-40. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press
  12. Latour B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B. 1999. Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  13. Latour B, Woolgar S. 1986. Laboratory of Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Lemke JL. 1990. Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Westport, CT: Ablex Locke J. 1690. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding: In Four Books. London: Printed for Thomas Basset. 17th ed.
  14. Lynch M. 1985. Discipline and the material form of images: an analysis of scientific visibility. Soc. Stud. Sci. 15(1):37-66
  15. Lynch M. 1988. The externalized retina: selection and mathematization in the visual documentation of objects in the life sciences. Hum. Stud. 11(2):201-34
  16. Lynch M. 1991. Science in the age of mechanical reproduction: moral and epistemic relations between diagrams and photographs. Biol. Philos. 6(2):205-26
  17. Lynch M. 2006. The production of scientific images: vision and re-vision in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science. In Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication, ed. L Pauwels, pp. 26-41. Dartmouth, NH: Dartmouth Coll. Press Lynch M, Woolgar S. 1990. Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT press O'Halloran KL. 2005. Mathematical Discourse: Language, Symbolism and Visual Images. London: Bloomsbury Ochs E, Gonzales P, Jacoby S. 1996. "When I come down I'm in the domain state": grammar and graphic representation in the interpretive activity of physicists. In Interaction and Grammar, ed. E Ochs, EA Schegloff, SA Thompson, pp. 328-69. Stud. Int. Sociolinguist. No. 13. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Ochs E, Jacoby S, Gonzales P. 1994. Interpretive journeys: how physicists talk and travel through graphic space. Configurations 2(1):151-71
  18. Oppenheim R. 2007. Actor-network theory and anthropology after science, technology, and society. Anthropol. Theory 7(4):471-93
  19. Pinch T. 1985. Towards an analysis of scientific observation: the externality and evidential significance of observational reports in physics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 15(1):3-36
  20. Putnam H. 2010. Mind, Language and Reality, Vol. 2. Philos. Pap. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Roth W-M. 2003. Toward an Anthropology of Graphing. Dordrecht, The Neth.: Springer Roth W-M. 2005. Talking Science: Language and Learning in Science Classrooms. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Saussure F de. 1966. Course in General Linguistics, ed. C Bally, A Sechehaye, A Riedlinger, transl. W Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill Sedley D. 2003. The Cambridge Companion to Greek and Roman Philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Silverstein M, Urban G. 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Sormani P. 2014. Respecifying Lab Ethnography: An Ethnomethodological Study of Experimental Physics. Directions in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. S Hester, D Francis. New York: Springer
  21. Stevens R, Hall R. 1998. Disciplined perception: learning to see in technoscience. In Talking Mathematics in School: Studies of Teaching and Learning, ed. M Lampert, ML Blunk, pp. 107-49. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  22. Tambiah S. 1996. Relations of analogy and identity: toward multiple orientations to the world. In Modes of Thought: Explorations in Culture and Cognition, ed. DR Olson, N Torrance, pp. 34-52. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  23. Traweek S. 2009. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Vickers B, ed. 1984. Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press Viechnicki GB. 2002. Evidentiality in Scientific Discourse. Chicago: Univ. Chicago, Dep. Linguist.
  24. Viechnicki GB, Kuipers J. 2006. "It's all human error!": when a school science experiment fails. Linguist. Educ. 17(2):107-30
  25. Viechnicki GB. 2009. Grammatical processes of objectification in a middle school science classroom. Linguist. Educ. 19(3):244-64
  26. Weber M. 1976 (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: The Relationships Between Religion and the Economic and Social Life in Modern Culture, transl. T Parsons. New York: Scribner Wilce JM. 2009. Medical discourse. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 38:199-215
  27. Wolfgram M. 2010. Truth claims and disputes in Ayurveda medical science. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 20(1):149-65
  28. Wolfgram M. 2012. The entextualization of Ayurveda as intellectual property. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 19(3):313-43
  29. Wolfgram M. 2014. Gesture and the communication of mathematical ontologies in classrooms. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 24(2):216-37
  30. Wolfgram MS. 2009. Ayurveda in the age of biomedicine: discursive asymmetries and counter-strategies. PhD Thesis, Univ. Mich.
  31. Wright, Laura J. 2009. Learning by doing: the objectification of knowledge across semiotic modalities in middle school chemistry lab activities. Linguist. Educ. 19(3):225-43
  32. Native American Genomics and Population Histories Deborah A. Bolnick, Jennifer A. Raff, Lauren C. Springs, Austin W. Reynolds, and Aida T. Miró-Herrans p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 319 Disease and Human/Animal Interactions Michael P. Muehlenbein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 395 Anthropology of Language and Communicative Practices Intellectual Property, Piracy, and Counterfeiting Alexander S. Dent p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17 Science Talk and Scientific Reference Matthew Wolfgram p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33 Language, Translation, Trauma Alex Pillen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p95 (Dis)fluency J ürgen Jaspers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 147 Some Recent Trends in the Linguistic Anthropology of Native North America Paul V. Kroskrity p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 267 Sociocultural Anthropology Urban Space and Exclusion in Asia Erik Harms p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p45 Historicity and Anthropology Charles Stewart p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p79 Anthropological STS in Asia Michael M. J. Fischer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181
  33. Cancer Juliet McMullin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251 Affect Theory and the Empirical Danilyn Rutherford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285 Where Have All the Peasants Gone? Susana Narotzky p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 301 Scripting the Folk: History, Folklore, and the Imagination of Place in Bengal Roma Chatterji p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 377 Reproductive Tourism: Through the Anthropological "Reproscope" Michal Rachel Nahman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417

Related papers

Scientific discourse
Päivi Pahta

Historical Pragmatics (Handbook), 2010

hops_018.pod 548 08-03-09 12:45:28 -fk-fk hops_018.pod 549 08-03-09 12:45:28 -fk-fk

View PDFchevron_right
The Contexts and Dynamics of Science Communication and Language
Ronald Rice

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

This final contribution to this special Journal of Language and Social Psychology issue on “using the science of language to improve translation of the language of science” places the articles in the context and nature of the broader literature on science communication, particularly as it relates to the media. This framework is crafted with a view to identifying the complex factors and processes that create translation problems, highlighting models and approaches that can improve science communication. Throughout, we propose a parsimonious set of research agenda items. Scholars wishing to move between different models of science communication should take into consideration the processes of formative evaluation, intergroup accommodation, and message design logics.

View PDFchevron_right
Article Language and science: products and processes of signification in the educational dialogue
Martin Dodman

2015

Global changes such as urbanisation, new ways of travelling, new information and communication technologies are causing radical changes in the relationships between human beings and the environment we are both a part of and depend on. Relationships which – according to a multiplicity of researches in various fields – are crucially important. Science education and the language of science risk exacerbating a tendency towards objectifying nature and inhabiting a virtual reality, thereby rendering ever more tenuous the dialogue between people and the natural world. This article examines two approaches to science and language – as products or as processes – and suggests how awareness of the dynamic relationship between language and knowledge can help restore that vital dialogue. To say that cognition is embodied means that it arises from bodily interactions with the world. From this point of view, cognition depends on the kinds of experiences that come from having a body with particular ...

View PDFchevron_right
Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalization. The Impact of Language and Culture
María Angeles Ruiz Moneva

Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2014

This book sets out to make the reader fully acquainted with the new landscape in science and scientific discourse resulting from the era of globalisation. It widens the scope of previous research in this field: the author aims to deal not only with the so-called "hard sciences" but also with social sciences and the humanities. It has been written for the native English-speaking researcher specialised in any of the above-mentioned disciplines, as well as the plurilingual scholar who is competent in languages other than his/her mother tongue. Adopting a discourse, rhetorical and genre orientation, this book develops the author's claim that an understanding of scientific discourse is essential for the production, dissemination and reception of scientific knowledge, for both native English-speaking and plurilingual scholars. The methodological approaches adopted by the author take into consideration some of the most updated developments in the field, such as corpus and text linguistics and ethnographic perspectives. The author stresses that social and interpersonal aspects underlie the discourse of science and shows the ways in which academic genres are constantly evolving in their rhetorical conventions. This is a result of the interchange of knowledge among scientists and scholars, regardless of whether English is their mother tongue or not. The book is structured into eight chapters. Chapter 1, entitled "The Role of Science Rhetoric in the Global Village", provides an overall view of the study, addresses the existing theoretical and methodological approaches and defines the major target reader of the study. Chapter 2, "Scientific English in the Postmodern Age", approaches scientific discourses within contemporary postmodernism from a twofold perspective, both as a textual process and as a textual product. In the context of a bibliometric analysis, the author deals with the situation of scientific research, publications and scientific quality in different contexts, and also with the overwhelming relationship between Universities and researchmainly, in the United States, the European Research Area (ERA), and Asian Universities (e.g., those of Japan and of China). This overall context enhances the transnational and international dimensions of knowledge nowadays and also helps Pérez-Llantada describe and characterise the Spanish situation. Emphasis is placed on the intrinsic and close relationship between research, education and economic development, which is based on the fact that knowledge must be assumed to be accountable, transferable and applicable. Similarly, the book shows how publishing in the English language has practically become indispensable for research to achieve a notorious international impact. In this sense, it is underlined that writing in English by non-native speakers requires not only a command of the grammatical and lexical aspects of the language, but also an acquaintance with the underlying academic rhetorical system. Chapter 3 approaches scientific texts from the textual and discourse perspective of genres. It addresses the latest tendencies in the rhetoric of contemporary science, where, according to Pérez-Llantada, the scientific text has become a commodity which 'seeks to sell science'. With such a purpose in mind, the author dwells upon the standardisation practices in scientific discourse within the social context. This is followed by the study of the socio-cognitive aspects of the rhetoric of science. The chapter also provides the reader with a comprehensive analysis of the most outstanding characteristics of contemporary scientific discourse, especially focussing on its textual aspects. Finally, the scientific text is analysed in its twofold but unified perspective as both a process and a product. Pérez-Llantada convincingly demonstrates that the scientific text is far from being purely informative or objective. Rather, she shows how the text reflects interpersonal and persuasive aspects which are inherent to the dissemination of the research made among the scientific community, particularly in relation to claims and results. The author argues that this has resulted from the essentially dialogic nature of scientific discourse. Thus, Chapter 4 deals with a contrastive-rhetoric approach to science dissemination on the basis of the tools supplied by corpus analysis and linguistics. More specifically, it approaches the task of writing a research paper in Anglophone contexts on the one hand and in non-Anglophone contexts on the other. It aims to raise the reader's awareness of the existing heterogeneity, diversity, and variation that may be expected in the two contexts regarding such aspects as linguistics, discourse analysis and rhetorical practices. The similarities and differences that can be traced in the English texts produced by either native or non-native speakers of English are explored. This is done through authentic data provided by corpora, namely the SERAC 1.0 (Spanish English Research Article Corpus), compiled by the

View PDFchevron_right
The Relationship between Language, Epistemology and Science: How to Preserve our Scientific Language?
Alparslan ACIKGENC

2019

Human behaviour has a direct correlation with its mental stimulator(s). Every mental construct is a network of concepts which are in turn linguistic entities. Therefore, there is a necessary correlation between human conduct and human language. The intensity of this correlation may vary from lesser degrees in actions that are not knowledgebound and thus result more from our biological nature to greater degrees in actions that depend on mental planning or conception. This article examines one human action that is directly bound with knowledge: scientific activities. It concentrates on two major issues: 1. the nature of language; 2. the nature of science and scientific activities. Once the two are clarified, the correlation between sciences and language becomes transparent. The conclusion concentrates on the idea that science depend on concepts that are developed in human language and then turned into technical terms in scientific inquiry. This means the less a language is developed,...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Anthropology
  • Social Sciences
  • Anthropology of Science
  • Linguistic Anthropology
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved