Presented Discourse in Popular Science

Pilkington, Olga A.

doi:10.1163/9789004365971

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…wonderful), thus supporting the researchers' argument that new knowledge established in the biological sciences can and should be used to change the perception of animals in the soft sciences. When reporting knowledge obtained outside their disciplinary fields, the researchers tend to refer to works of popular science, which confirms earlier findings (Pilkington 2018) concerning the importance of popularization as a bridge between different academic disciplines. Experiential knowledge reported by those who work with animals is also introduced, with either neutral and/or positive markers of appraisal.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Indeed many popular science works are written by researchers who treat them as alternative publication outlets (cf. Bucchi 1998;Turney 2007;Pilkington 2018), with Pilkington (2018 concluding, based on a number of examples from the field of physics, that "[n]ot only does popular science address professional scientists, but it also serves as a medium for negotiation and development of ideas, as much as the research article does". The results of this study provide evidence for the importance of popular science in the development of ideas in the humanities.…”

Section: Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constructing knowledge at the intersection of disciplines: appraisal in knowledge claims concerning animals in posthumanist discourse

Rozumko

2023

Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The discursive practices of individual academic disciplines differ in many ways, which is why numerous studies of academic discourse adopt cross-disciplinary perspectives to explore the character and extent of those differences. Less attention has, however, been given to interdisciplinary discourses which incorporate the findings and/or research methods from a number of disciplines. This paper focuses on the discourse of one of the new critical interdisciplinarities: posthumanism. More specifically, it examines how posthumanist discourse integrates knowledge produced by the soft and hard sciences (as well as other sources) to build its perspective on animals and their relations with humans. Using Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework to study knowledge claims collected from selected scholarly monographs adopting a posthumanist perspective, this study demonstrates that posthumanist claims referring to biological knowledge and experiential evidence tend to contain neutral, positive and endorsing formulations, while the knowledge from the soft sciences is reported in more critical ways, which is consistent with the aims of critical interdisciplinarities, i.e. questioning and transforming the dominant knowledge structure within different disciplines. Additionally, this paper provides evidence of the importance of popular science within interdisciplinary research in the humanities. It also sheds some light on the rhetorical practices within the scholarly monograph as a genre, particularly concerning the relative flexibility of its discursive conventions in comparison with those expected from a research article.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing knowledge at the intersection of disciplines: appraisal in knowledge claims concerning animals in posthumanist discourse

Rozumko

2023

Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figurative definitions usually suffer the most criticism when it comes to applying traditional frameworks to definitions in popular science. Examinations of metaphors and analogies in popular science abound (Caracciolo, 2013; Pilkington, 2018; Smith, 2013; Turney, 2004a, 2004b). They focus, for the most part, on the effectiveness of figurative language to communicate scientific concepts and very rarely on the structure of such text segments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They focus, for the most part, on the effectiveness of figurative language to communicate scientific concepts and very rarely on the structure of such text segments. These common approaches regard figurative formulations as inauthentic to professional science—devices that ultimately lead to “translations” or “re-creations” (Turney, 2004a), constructs that have to do more with imagination and affective domain (Caracciolo, 2013) or even with misrepresentation of facts (Pilkington, 2018) than with reality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, when it comes to communicating science to the public, there are the issues of public trust, perception, and background knowledge in addition to the nature of scientific knowledge itself. Drawing on the works of Myers (2003) and Yang (2003), I suggest elsewhere that the type of knowledge about science that the public possesses is different from that of the scientific community (see Pilkington, 2016, 2018). Public’s perception and understanding of science is often connected to emotionality (Caracciolo, 2013; Moirand, 2003; Pilkington, 2016, 2018, 2019; Sackler, 2014; Turney, 2004a), and emotional appeal becomes an important factor for authors to consider.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Definitions of Scientific Terminology in Popular Science Books: An Examination of Definitional Chains

Pilkington

2019

Science Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores scientific terminology in popular science books. It goes beyond existing approaches to definitions in popularizations to suggest a dual, macro and micro, structure for the majority of definitions. This dual structure manifests as chains of definitions that include prototypical, procedural, and figurative definitions. Analyzing the structure and functions of the chains (macro structure) and their individual components (micro structure), this article does not confirm the phenomenon of substitution observed by Myers yet suggests that even without the replacement of terminology popular science maintains the focus on the specific rather than the general.

show abstract

A review of Leech and Short’s norms of speech and thought presentation

Ikeo,

Miura

2024

Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses how the concept of norms of speech and thought presentation relates to speech and thought presentation in actual texts with reference to the examination of two corpora, Semino and Short’s discourse presentation corpus, and a corpus of contemporary present-tense fiction. Through this approach, we review the meanings of the norms in each kind of discourse presentation. Leech and Short suggest that the norm of speech presentation is direct speech (DS) and the norm of thought presentation is indirect thought (IT). Examining their claim quantitatively and qualitatively, we will discuss how forms of speech and thought presentation are chosen in different socio-lingual contexts. Our examination strongly indicates that DS predominantly serves as the norm for speech presentation. However, thought presentation exhibits a higher degree of variability, influenced by genre, text type, and narrative tense and mode, and thus our investigation did not ascertain a singular category that consistently prevails quantitatively over others in thought presentation.

show abstract

Presented Discourse in Popular Science

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Constructing knowledge at the intersection of disciplines: appraisal in knowledge claims concerning animals in posthumanist discourse

Constructing knowledge at the intersection of disciplines: appraisal in knowledge claims concerning animals in posthumanist discourse

Definitions of Scientific Terminology in Popular Science Books: An Examination of Definitional Chains

A review of Leech and Short’s norms of speech and thought presentation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About