As linguists, we are interested in the way uncertainty, understood as a range of epistemic qualities related to not knowing, is dealt with linguistically in communicative contexts involving scientists, the mass media and the public. One of our central theses is that uncertainty in journalistic texts is not only reflected at different linguistic levels but that it also has various rhetorical functions. Through close analysis of a German newspaper article about geo-engineering, we show which specific linguistic forms, categories and structures are used when dealing with uncertainty, and which rhetorical functions of uncertainty are identifiable in the text. We conclude from our analysis that a 'language of (un-)certainty' is always highly context sensitive, meaning that the linguistic resources used to express uncertainty are both multifaceted and multifunctional.

No abstract

No abstract

This linguistics article, which draws additionally on interdisciplinary insights, discusses whether and to what extent more empathy could facilitate and promote the exchange of knowledge between science and society. The existence of the Internet as a knowledge resource has made it necessary, especially in online communication, to renegotiate (scientific) expertise and roles such as ‘expert’ and ‘layperson.’ A discourse linguistics case study of a science blog shows that these negotiations quickly take on the character of an emotionally charged relationship between writer and respondent and are by no means limited to the level of fact or disinterested scholarly debate. The reason for this—so this article argues—is that reciprocal expectations and expectations of expectations play an essential role in science communication, as in any social communication. This hypothesis is supported by an analysis of interviews with scientists about their expectations of the public’s understanding of science. Against this background, empathy seems to be a suitable means to better meet the expectations of one’s interlocuter (or at least to avoid disappointed expectations) and to move from a more emotional level back to a more rational one. Empathy and its role in science communication should therefore be investigated more closely—on an interdisciplinary basis.

No abstract