Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resources in English popular science articles

Esmat Babaii; Mahmood Reza Atai; Mavadat Saidi

Journal Name:

Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research

Publication Year:

2017

Key Words:

Author Name	University of Author
Esmat Babaii	University of Tehran
Mahmood Reza Atai	University of Tehran
Mavadat Saidi	University of Tehran

Abstract (2. Language):

With the increasingly growing technological advances and their consequences for societies, the public has the right to be engaged in the outcomes of science. On the one hand, the public are interested in acquiring information about the results of scientists’ experiments. On the other hand, the scientists are willing to share their feelings about their discoveries with the public in order to achieve wider audience. These all have prompted popularizing of science within the last few decades. The current study aimed to explore the frequency of evaluative resources of Appraisal in English popular science articles (PSAs hereafter) in the field of Nutrition. A total of 40 English popularized articles published in four popular sources, WebMD, Better Nutrition, Science Daily, and New York Times, were analyzed in terms of three main categories and subcategories of Appraisal Theory. The results of the analysis revealed that authors used more Attitude resources followed by Graduation and Engagement resources. With regard to subcategories of three main categories, the authors of English PSAs included more cases of appreciation, force, and heterogloss resources. The findings indicated that the authors of PSAs tend to insert their feelings about their discoveries through employing Appraisal resources. The results might be used to embed Appraisal resources in EAP materials in order to equip the would-be scientists with a helpful tool to meet the expectations of another group of their intended audience, i.e. general public, in addition to fulfilling the requirements of their academic discourse community.

Bookmark/Search this post with

Tweet Widget

FULL TEXT (PDF):

arastirmax-are-scientists-objective-investigation-appraisal-resources-english-popular-science-articles.pdf

1

1

19

English

REFERENCES

References:

Abdollahzade, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (1), 288-297.
Babaii, E. (2011). Hard science, hard talk? The study of negative comments in physics book reviews. In F. Salager-Mayer, & B.A. Lewin (Eds.). Crossed Words, Criticism in Scholarly Writing (pp. 55-77). Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 5(1), (Jan., 2017) 1-19 15
Ben-Ari, E. T. (1999). When scientists write books for the public: The ups and downs, ins and outs, of writing popular science books. BioScience, 49 (10), 819-824.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowler, P. J. (2009). Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago and London.
Bozorgian, H., & Fallahpour, S. (2015). Teachers’ and students’ amount and purposes of L2 use: English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom in Iran. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 3 (2), 67-81.
Bucchi, M. (2013). Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 22 (8), 904-915.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the work place and school (pp. 196-230). London: Continuum.
Dafouz-Milner, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: Across-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40 (1), 95-113.
Estrada, F. C. R., & David, L. S. (2015). Improving visual communication of science through incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication, 37 (1), 140-148.
Fahnestock, J. (1998). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 15 (3), 330-350.
Gallardo, S. (2005). Pragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularized texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (6), 813-835.
Giannoni, D. S. (2008). Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes, 27 (2), 212-232.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing (Doctoral thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia). Retrieved November 4, 2013 from http://grammatics.com/appraisal/hoodS-phd-links.htm
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Education in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (2), 116-127.
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24 (2), 123-139.
16 E. Babaii, M. Atai & M. Saidi/Are Scientists Objective? …
Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East-Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia.
Lievrouw, L. A. (1990). Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7 (1), 1-10.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Ney York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13 (3), 273-294.
Miller, Th. (1998). Visual persuasion: A comparison of visuals in academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific Purposes, 17 (1), 29-46.
Nur Aktas, R., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 (1), 3-14.
Nwogu, K. N. (1991). Structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10 (2), 111-123.
Page, R. E. (2003). An analysis of appraisal in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style. Text, 23 (2), 211-237.
Parkinson, J., & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes, 23 (4), 379-396.
Rashidi, N., Rahimi, M., & Alimorad, Z. (2014). Iranian university English learners’ discursive demotivation construction. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 35-49.
Ren, F., & Zhai, J. (2014). Communication and Popularization of Science and Technology in China. London: Springer.
Riesch, H. (2014). Why did the proton cross the road? Humor and Science Communication, Public Understanding of Science, 24 (7), 768-775.
Russell, N. (2010). Communicating Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sapp, G. (1995). Building a Popular Science Library Collection for High School to Adult Learners: Issues and Recommended Resources. USA: Greenwood Press.
Shaw, Ph., & Vassileva, I. (2009). Co-evolving academic rhetoric across culture: Britain, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany in the 20th century. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (2), 290-305.
Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. THE LANCET, 347 (9008), 1087-1090.
Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 5(1), (Jan., 2017) 1-19 17
Tutin, A. (2010). Evaluative adjectives in academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. In R. Lores-Sanz, P. Mur-Duenas, & E. Laufauente-Millan (eds.) Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres (pp. 219-240).. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative function of hedging in popular science and specialist research articles of Medicine. English for Specific Purposes, 18 (2), 177-200.
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling Media Tales: the news story as rhetoric. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Sydney, Sydney.
Zhang, J. Y. (2015). The ‘credibility paradox’ in China’s science communication: views from scientific practitioners. Public Understanding of Science, 24 (8), 913-927.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com

Tweet Widget

You are here

Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resources in English popular science articles

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Key Words:

REFERENCES

Recommended Articles

You are here

Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resources in English popular science articles

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Key Words:

REFERENCES

Login

Recommended Articles