Formulation and Reformulation Procedures in Verbal Interactions between Experts and (Semi-)laypersons

Abstract

This article has a dual purpose: on the one hand, it aims to add to the study of text production from a formulation-centered perspective (Antos, 1982; Gülich and Kotschi, 1995); on the other, since the analysis and discussion of linguistic problems presented here focus on a specific discourse type within scientific communication, this article is intended as a contribution to scientific communication studies. As I am particularly interested in text production as a process, the corpus I examine consists of oral interviews. In particular, I explore the oral interaction between scientists and specialized journalists that precedes the writing of science popularization texts targeted for the lay reader. I analyze and assess, from a structural and functional point of view, two types of recurrent formulation procedures usually deployed by experts: `illustration' and `reformulation', and claim they constitute resources for the construction of the interlocutors' discursive identities.

Raising awareness around writers' voice in academic discourse : an analysis of writers' (in)visibility

“…Abstract rhetors presented the lowest frequency (327 tokens) yet, they directly were interpreted as Med-RAs results and products. Contrastive studies dealing with (im)personality and (de)personalisation processes have been conducted in RAs and in scientific dissemination articles by Ciapuscio (2003), Ferrari and Gallardo (1999), Gil-Salom (2000) or Martínez (2001). They suggest that nominalisations and, more specifically, abstract rhetors are kept in the resulting scientific dissemination articles or popularizations to maintain the reader's trust in the research process.…”

The Simplification of Jury Instructions: Legal-Lay Interactions in Jury Trials

“…Along with definitions, legal professionals often describe legal concepts without delving into their theorization because what laypeople need is an understanding of a concept, rather than its abstract definition. Being enlarged versions of definitions, descriptions used to explain expert knowledge by relating it to common knowledge have simpler structures (Anesa, 2016;Ciapuscio, 2003). A concept that is defined can be explained through a description more elaborately.…”

“…This cognitive strategy is a form of formulation applied to the semantic-conceptual level of discourse. It includes the resources deployed by speakers to explain complex concepts in terms of everyday experience (Brünner, 1999;Ciapuscio, 2003), by providing factual examples of legal concepts with the aim of making these concepts less abstract, which therefore improves jurors' comprehension. Such examples are often easier to remember than general knowledge and hence are quite useful as an explanatory device in expert-lay interactions (Calsamiglia & van Dijk, 2004).…”

“…A large pool of research is available on expert-lay interactions (Anesa, 2016;Ciapuscio, 2003;Gotti, 2014;Heffer, 2005;Krapivkina, 2017;Roelcke, 2018;Tiersma & Curtis, 2008;Turnbull, 2018). For example, Anesa (2016) sought to describe the peculiarities of expert-lay interaction and identify explanatory structures which contribute to the popularization of legal information through the analysis of a corpus of threads drawn from law forums.…”

“…For example, Anesa (2016) sought to describe the peculiarities of expert-lay interaction and identify explanatory structures which contribute to the popularization of legal information through the analysis of a corpus of threads drawn from law forums. Ciapuscio (2003) described one explanatory strategy -reformulation -as efforts made by the participants to the communication act in order to produce expressions more suitable to the interlocutor's level of comprehension. Turnbull (2018: 203-204) described illustrations and explanations as explanatory strategies employed with the intention to present specialized knowledge.…”