Whose stance is it, anyway? A corpus-based study of stance expressions in science news articles

• Batchelor, Jordan ^[1]
  1. [1] Georgia State University

     Georgia State University

     Estados Unidos

     
• Localización: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE ), ISSN-e 2340-2784, ISSN 1139-7241, Nº. 47, 2024, págs. 93-120
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.17398/2340-2784.47.93
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen

  •   Communicating scientific research to the public is as important as ever. Several studies have investigated the ways that science writers communicate personal feelings and assessments, otherwise known as stance, in their writing, reporting somewhat mixed results. In this study, I examine the grammatical stance marking of science news articles. I compare the ways that writers and the researchers that they quote uniquely contribute to the overall expression of stance in these articles. Results reveal that the researchers’ talk substantially contribute to the overall stance of science news articles compared to their writers, indicated by a greater use of modal verbs, stance verbs and adjectives controlling that complement clauses, and stance adverbials, including a greater use of ‘boosters’. This study suggests that researchers’ talk in science news articles co-participate in the newsworthiness of science and offer an alternative perspective on academic research uncommon in research writing.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Adams-Smith, D. E. (1987). The process of popularization—rewriting medical research papers for the layman: Discussion paper. Journal of the...
  • Bauer, M.W., & Falade, B.A. (2014). Public understanding of science: Survey research around the world. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (Eds),...
  • Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam & New York: John Benjamins Publishing.
  • Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style. (2nd Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson...
  • Blanchard, A. (2011). Science blogs in research and popularization of science: Why, how and for whom? In M. Cockell, J. Billotte, F. Darbellay...
  • Buehl, J. (2022). Graphical abstracts: Visually circulating scientific arguments. In C. Hanganu-Bresch, M. J. Zerbe, G. Cutrufello, &...
  • Calsamiglia, H., & Ferrero, C.L. (2003). Role and position of scientific voices: Reported speech in the media. Discourse Studies, 5(2),...
  • Dunwoody, S. (2014). Science journalism in the digital age. In M. Bucchi & B. Trench (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication...
  • Fahnestock, J. (1986). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 3(3), 275-296.
  • Fu, X., & Hyland, K. (2014). Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction,...
  • Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientific Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University...
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1996). Writing Science. Bristol: The Falmer Press.
  • Hilgartner, S. (1990). The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 20(3), 519-539.
  • Hunston, S. (2010). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. New York: Routledge.
  • Hunston, S. (1994) ‘Evaluation and organisation in academic discourse’, in M. Coulthard (Ed.) Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge....
  • Hyland, K. (2007). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. 2nd edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readings in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,...
  • Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2019). Academic discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary persuasion in changing times. London & New...
  • Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signaling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39-63.
  • Hyland, K., & Zou, H. (2020). In the frame: Signaling structure in academic articles and blogs. Journal of Pragmatics, 165, 31-44.
  • Jiang, F., & Qiu, X. (2022). Communicating disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience in 3MT presentations: How students engage with popularization...
  • Larsson, T. (2019). Grammatical stance marking across registers. Register Studies, 1(2), 243-268.
  • Luzón, M. J. (2013). Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience. Written...
  • Luzón, M. J. (2017). Connecting genres and languages in online scholarly communication: An analysis of research group blogs. Written Communication,...
  • Luzón, M. J., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2019) (Eds.). Science communication on the Internet: Old genres meet new genres. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:...
  • Luzón, M. J. (2019). Bridging the gap between experts and publics: The role of multimodality in disseminating research in online videos. Iberica,...
  • Martin, J.R., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave.
  • Mautner, G. (2007). Mining large corpora for social information: the case of elderly. Language in Society 36,(1), 51–72.
  • Mautner, G. (2022). What can a corpus tell us about discourse? In A. O’Keeffe, & M. J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus...
  • McGregor, J., & Fernandez, J. (2019). Theorizing qualitative interviews: Two autoethnographic reconstructions. The Modern Language Journal,...
  • McKinlay, A. & Potter, J. (1987). Model discourse: Interpretative repertoires in scientists’ conference talk. Social Science Studies,...
  • Mehlenbacher, A. (2017). Crowdfunding science: Exigencies and strategies in an emerging genre of science communication. Technical Communication...
  • Miller, S. (2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115–120.
  • Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The...
  • Orpin, D. (2019). #Vaccineswork: Recontextualizing the content of epidemiology reports on Twitter. In M. J. Luzón, & C. Pérez-Llantada...
  • Palca, J. (2006). Broadcast science journalism. In D. Blum, M. Knudson, & R. M. Henig (Eds.), A Field Guide for Science Writers (2nd Ed.),...
  • Pérez-Llantada, C. (2021). Grammar features and discourse style in digital genres: The case of science-focused crowdfunding projects. Revista...
  • Peters, H. P., Brossard, D., de Cheveigné, S., Dunwoody, S., Kallfass, M., Miller, S., & Tsuchida, S. (2008). Interactions with the mass...
  • Qiu, X., & Jiang, F. (2021). Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience....
  • Sidler, M. (2016). “The Chemistry Liveblogging Event: The Web Refigures Peer Review.” In A. G. Gross & J. Buehl (Eds.), Science and the...
  • Valeiras-Jurado, J., & Bernad-Mechó, E. (2022). Modal density and coherence in science dissemination: Orchestrating multimodal ensembles...
  • Varttala, T. (1999). Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine....
  • Ye, Y. (2021). From abstracts to “60-second science” podcasts: Reformulation of scientific discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,...