Editorial

New concepts, different approaches: tackling e-visibility in research project websites

“…A first, exploratory look at the digital texts under analysis showed that other perspectives should be brought to the fore in combination with the well-established ones, as a more encompassing, multifaceted view of how visibility is crafted in digital discourse was requested, that is, of who/what is made visible and, then, of what the mechanisms are by which visibility is constructed in digital discourse. Thus, we have here aligned with those approaches which sustain that the analysis of interpersonal features such as visibility demands a wide view of what interpersonality means and of the resources it makes use of (Lorés-Sanz et al, 2010;Mur-Dueñas et al, 2010) and with those that sustain that interpersonal features are conditioned by contextual variables such as corpus, discipline, genre itself, as well as language and culture, (Suau-Jiménez et al, in press), which, in the case of digital discourse, should also include the use of various modes in a combined way.…”

“…Our contention here is that the analysis of interpersonal features, among which visibility is included, demands a wide view of what interpersonality means and of the lexicogrammatical resources it makes use of (Lorés-Sanz, Mur-Dueñas et al, 2010). The reason is that interpersonal features are conditioned by contextual variables which affect the way they are instantiated in texts.…”

Dual voices, hybrid identities: the recontextualization of research in digital dissemination scientific discourse

“…Thus defined, voice is understood as dialogical, as "the reader's impression of the writer's attempts to position her or himself by using a particular combination of discursive and non-discursive features" (Matsuda and Tardy, 2007: 239). However, the concept of voice remains elusive and has been approached from various perspectives which also include metadiscoursal engagement (Hyland, 2005b); interpersonality (Mur-Dueñas, Lorés Sanz and Lafuente-Millán et al, 2010); proximity (Hyland, 2010); evaluation (Hunston and Thompson, 2000) and stance (Biber and Finegan, 1989;Charles, 2006;Hyland, 2005b;Jiang, 2017;Sancho-Guinda and Hyland, 2012), among others.…”