Rhetorical Communication in the CogSci Discourse Community: The Cognitive Neurosciences (2004) in the Context of Scientific Dissemination
In recent years linguistic research has turned
increasing attention to covert/overt strategies to modulate authorial
stance and positioning in scientific texts, and to the recipients'
response. This study discussed some theoretical implications of the
use of rhetoric in scientific communication and analysed qualitative
data from the authoritative The Cognitive Neurosciences III (2004)
volume. Its genre-identity, status and readability were considered, in
the social interactive context of contemporary disciplinary discourses
– in their polyphony of traditional and new, emerging genres.
Evidence was given of the ways its famous authors negotiate and
shape knowledge and research results – explicitly appraising team
work and promoting faith in the fast-paced progress of Cognitive
Neuroscience, also through experiential metaphors – by presenting a
set of examples, ordered according to their dominant rhetorical
quality.
[1] A. Gross, The Rhetoric of Science, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University
Press, 1990.
[2] M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed),The Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
[3] S. G. Waxman, The Cognitive Neuroscience III. A review, 2005.
Available at cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs.
[4] J. Hillis Miller, "Literary studies in the Transnational University", in The
J. Hillis Miller Reader, J. Wolfreys, Ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. pp.
339-390, 2005.
[5] Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings.
Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[6] J. Swales, Arrangements of Genre: The Case of the Research World.
Lecture at Aalborg University, 2003.
Available: http://diskurs.hum.aau.dk/english/discourse.htm.
[7] V. K.Bhatia and M. Gotti (Eds), Explorations in Specialized Genres.
Bern: Peter Lang, 2006.
[8] M. Gotti and D. S. Giannoni (Eds), New Trends in Specialized Discourse
Analysis. Bern: Peter Lang, 2006.
[9] K. Hyland, Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic
Writing . Ann Arbor (Michigan): University of Michigan Press, 2004.
[10] K. Hyland, "Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic
discourses", paper presented at the NewTrends in specialized Discourse
LSP Conference. University of Bergamo, 29 August-2 September 2005.
[11] K. Hyland, "The ÔÇÿOther- English: Thoughts on EAP and Academic
Writing" The European English Messenger, 15, no. 2, pp.34-38, 2006.
[12] C. R. Miller, Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science. In S. P. Witte & N.
Nakadate (eds). A Rhetoric of Doing. Essays on Written Discourse.
Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 310-327, 1992.
[13] C. R. Miller, & D. Shepherd, Blogging as Social Action: A Genre
Analysis of the Weblog ,2004. Available: http://blog.lib.umn.edu.
[14] G. Boismenu, Scholarly Journals in the New Electronic World.
Calgary, Alta: University of Calgary Press, 2004.
[15] S. Maci, "The Research Letter: an emerging medical genre". Paper
presented at the Identity and Culture in English Domain-specific
Discourse Conference. University of Naples "Federico II", 19-20
October 2006.
[16] G. Myers, Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific
Knowledge. Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
[17] M. Hamilton, "Rhetoric, Science and the Rhetoric of Science".
Presented at Human Sciences Conference at The George Washington
University, 2000. Available: www.janushead.org/gwu-
2001/hamilton.cfm
[18] G. Marramao, Kair├│s . Apologia del tempo debito. Roma, Bari: Laterza,
1992.
[19] K. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London & New York:
Routledge, 1959 (2002).
[20] K. Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1972.
[21] T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago
Press, 1962.
[22] C. Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of
the Experimental Article in Science, Madison WI: The University of
Wisconsin Press, 1988.
[23] G. Lakoff & M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980.
[24] G. Lakoff & M. Johnson, Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind
and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
[25] Brown, T. L., Making Truth: Metaphor in Science. Urbana and Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 2003.
[26] P. R. White, Appraisal: the language of attitudinal evaluation and
intersubjective stance, 2005. Available:
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal
[27] L. Ceccarelli, Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky,
Schrodinger, and Wilson. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press,
2001.
[1] A. Gross, The Rhetoric of Science, Cambridge Mass: Harvard University
Press, 1990.
[2] M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed),The Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004.
[3] S. G. Waxman, The Cognitive Neuroscience III. A review, 2005.
Available at cognet.mit.edu/library/erefs.
[4] J. Hillis Miller, "Literary studies in the Transnational University", in The
J. Hillis Miller Reader, J. Wolfreys, Ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP. pp.
339-390, 2005.
[5] Swales, Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings.
Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
[6] J. Swales, Arrangements of Genre: The Case of the Research World.
Lecture at Aalborg University, 2003.
Available: http://diskurs.hum.aau.dk/english/discourse.htm.
[7] V. K.Bhatia and M. Gotti (Eds), Explorations in Specialized Genres.
Bern: Peter Lang, 2006.
[8] M. Gotti and D. S. Giannoni (Eds), New Trends in Specialized Discourse
Analysis. Bern: Peter Lang, 2006.
[9] K. Hyland, Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic
Writing . Ann Arbor (Michigan): University of Michigan Press, 2004.
[10] K. Hyland, "Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic
discourses", paper presented at the NewTrends in specialized Discourse
LSP Conference. University of Bergamo, 29 August-2 September 2005.
[11] K. Hyland, "The ÔÇÿOther- English: Thoughts on EAP and Academic
Writing" The European English Messenger, 15, no. 2, pp.34-38, 2006.
[12] C. R. Miller, Kairos in the Rhetoric of Science. In S. P. Witte & N.
Nakadate (eds). A Rhetoric of Doing. Essays on Written Discourse.
Southern Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 310-327, 1992.
[13] C. R. Miller, & D. Shepherd, Blogging as Social Action: A Genre
Analysis of the Weblog ,2004. Available: http://blog.lib.umn.edu.
[14] G. Boismenu, Scholarly Journals in the New Electronic World.
Calgary, Alta: University of Calgary Press, 2004.
[15] S. Maci, "The Research Letter: an emerging medical genre". Paper
presented at the Identity and Culture in English Domain-specific
Discourse Conference. University of Naples "Federico II", 19-20
October 2006.
[16] G. Myers, Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific
Knowledge. Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
[17] M. Hamilton, "Rhetoric, Science and the Rhetoric of Science".
Presented at Human Sciences Conference at The George Washington
University, 2000. Available: www.janushead.org/gwu-
2001/hamilton.cfm
[18] G. Marramao, Kair├│s . Apologia del tempo debito. Roma, Bari: Laterza,
1992.
[19] K. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London & New York:
Routledge, 1959 (2002).
[20] K. Popper, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1972.
[21] T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago
Press, 1962.
[22] C. Bazerman, Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of
the Experimental Article in Science, Madison WI: The University of
Wisconsin Press, 1988.
[23] G. Lakoff & M. Johnson, Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980.
[24] G. Lakoff & M. Johnson, Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind
and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
[25] Brown, T. L., Making Truth: Metaphor in Science. Urbana and Chicago:
University of Illinois Press, 2003.
[26] P. R. White, Appraisal: the language of attitudinal evaluation and
intersubjective stance, 2005. Available:
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal
[27] L. Ceccarelli, Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky,
Schrodinger, and Wilson. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press,
2001.
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:54960", author = "Lucia Abbamonte and Olimpia Matarazzo", title = "Rhetorical Communication in the CogSci Discourse Community: The Cognitive Neurosciences (2004) in the Context of Scientific Dissemination", abstract = "In recent years linguistic research has turned
increasing attention to covert/overt strategies to modulate authorial
stance and positioning in scientific texts, and to the recipients'
response. This study discussed some theoretical implications of the
use of rhetoric in scientific communication and analysed qualitative
data from the authoritative The Cognitive Neurosciences III (2004)
volume. Its genre-identity, status and readability were considered, in
the social interactive context of contemporary disciplinary discourses
– in their polyphony of traditional and new, emerging genres.
Evidence was given of the ways its famous authors negotiate and
shape knowledge and research results – explicitly appraising team
work and promoting faith in the fast-paced progress of Cognitive
Neuroscience, also through experiential metaphors – by presenting a
set of examples, ordered according to their dominant rhetorical
quality.", keywords = "Appraisal, disciplinary discourses, experientialmetaphors, genre, identity, knowledge, readability, rhetoric,strategies, theoretical implications.", volume = "2", number = "8", pages = "868-10", }
