Appraisal Resources in Science Communication: Astrophysics Discourse in Academia and Media

Shoja, Leila; Karambeigi, Amir Mamood; Afshar, Tehereh

doi:10.22034/jls.2026.145290.1338

فهرست نشریات

دومین نسخه چاپی مجله فصلنامه مطالعات ادبی و فرهنگی معاصر

آیین نامه نشریات علمی مصوب اردیبهشت ۱۳۹۸

شیوه نامه ارزیابی و رتبه بندی نشریات علمی

سامانه همیاب با امکان مشابهت یابی مقالات فعال شد

تقدیر و تشکر از چهار عنوان مجله برتر دانشگاه کردستان در هفته پژوهش

تعداد نشریات	34
تعداد شماره‌ها	434
تعداد مقالات	4,099
تعداد مشاهده مقاله	5,621,221
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله	5,777,361

	Appraisal Resources in Science Communication: Astrophysics Discourse in Academia and Media
پژوهش‌های زبان‌شناسی: نظریه و کاربرد
مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 28 اردیبهشت 1405 اصل مقاله (621.91 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22034/jls.2026.145290.1338
نویسندگان
Leila Shoja^* ¹؛ Amir Mamood Karambeigi²؛ Tehereh Afshar³
¹Assistant Professor, English Language and Literature Department,, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
²MA. in TEFL, English Language and Literature Department, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
³Associate Professor, English Language and Literature Department, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran
چکیده
Science communication has been investigated through a variety of theories and perspectives. However, certain fields that are targets of science popularization have not received due attention. This study, therefore, aimed to examine evaluation in the spoken academic and popularized English discourse of astrophysics. Thirteen episodes from a well-regarded documentary represented the popularized discourse in the research, while twelve academic lectures by college professors represented the academic discourse. First, the data were transcribed using Trint, and then the corpus was analyzed with UAM CorpusTool based on the categories of Appraisal Theory. The analysis revealed that the most frequent resources in both corpora were Graduation, Attitude, and Engagement, respectively. Moreover, the results of four chi-square tests revealed significant differences in the use of appraisal resources between them. The findings, which are explained by different factors such as the audience and communicative goals, have implications for science communicators in academic and popular contexts.
کلیدواژه‌ها
Appraisal Theory؛ Academic discourse؛ Evaluation؛ Popularized discourse؛ Science communication

مراجع
^References ^{Abdollahzade, E. (2011). Poring over the findings: Interpersonal authorial engagement in applied linguistics papers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 288–297.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019} ^{Babaii, E., Atai, M. R., & Saidi, M. (2017). Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resources in English popular science articles. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 1–19.}^{https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2017.20339} ^{Baker, P. (2023). Using corpora in discourse analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing.} ^{Ben-Ari, E. (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.}^{https://doi.org/10.2307/1313573} ^{Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2001). A genealogy of the increasing gap between science and the public. Public Understanding of Science, 10(1), 99–113.}^{https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/307} ^{Besley, J. C., & Dudo, A. (2022). Strategic science communication: a guide to setting the right objectives for more effective public engagement. JHU Press.} ^{Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.} ^{Birch, H., & Weitkamp, E. (2010). Podologues: Conversations created by science podcasts. New Media & Society, 12(6), 889–909.}^{https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809356333} ^{Bowler, P. (2009). Science for all: The popularization of science in early twentieth century Britain. University of Chicago Press.} ^{Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2021). The Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge.} ^{Corbett, J. (2006). Popularizations. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Simpson (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 755–759). UK: Pergamon.} ^{Fahnestock, J. (1998). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication, 15(3), 330–350.}^{https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088386003003001} ^{Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.} ^{Farnia, M., & Ebrahimi, S. F. (2024). Exploring metadiscourse markers in students’ persuasive email requests to university professors. Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 173-201.}^{https://doi.org/10.22034/jls.2024.141017.1094} ^{Flowerdew, J. (2002). Academic discourse. Routledge.} ^{Gallardo, S. (2005). Pragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularized texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(6), 813–835.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.013} ^{Giannoni, D. S. (2008). Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 212–232.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.12.001} ^{Hempel, S., & Degand, L. (2008). Sequencers in different text genres: Academic writing, journalese and fiction. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 676–693.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.001} ^{Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. Sydney, Australia: University of Technology.} ^{Hyland, K. (2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1}^–23. ^{https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49151} ^{Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(2), 116–127.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003} ^{Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. English for Specific Purposes, 24(2), 123–139.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2004.02.002} ^{Iranmehr, A. (2024). Teaching critically and creatively: Fusing environmental education for social and language development in English language teaching. Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 153-170.}^{https://doi.org/10.22034/jls.2024.140975.1089} ^{Kedrowicz, A., & Taylor, J. (2016). Shifting rhetorical norms and electronic eloquence: TED Talks as formal presentations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 352–377.}^{https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651916636373} ^{Keeler, J. (1897). The importance of astrophysical research and the relation of astrophysics to other physical sciences. Science}^{, 6(151), 745–755.}^{https://doi.org/10.}^{1126/science.6.151.74}⁵ ^{Lee, S. H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by East-Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students [PhD Thesis, University of Sydney].} ^{Li, X., & Li, F. (2021). Corpus-based move analysis of TED talks about education. Creative Education, 12(1), 166–175.}^{https://doi.org/}^{10.4236/ce.2021.121012} ^{Lievrouw, L. (1990). Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7(1), 1–10.}^{https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039009360159} ^{Liu, Q., & Deng, L. (2017). A genre-based study of shell-noun use in the N-be-that construction in popular and professional science articles. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 32–43.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.11.002} ^{Martin, J., & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230511910} ^{Mauranen, A. 2002. “A good question”. expressing evaluation in academic speech. In G. Cortese and P. Riley (eds.), Domain-specific English. textual practices across communities and classrooms (pp. 115-140). Frankfurt: PeterLang.} ^{McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.} ^{Miller, Th. (1998). Visual persuasion: A comparison of visuals in academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific Purposes, 17(1), 29–46.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00029-X} ^{Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35.}^{https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1} ^{Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. London: University of Wisconsin Press.} ^{Nwogu, K. (1991). Structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes, 10(2), 111–123.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(91)90004-G} ^{O'Donnell, M. (2023). UAM CorpusTool (Version 6.2) [Software].}^{http://www.corpustool.com/} ^{O'Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Smith, B. A., & Podlasov, A. (2011). Multimodal analysis within an interactive software environment: critical discourse perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(2), 109-125.}^{https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2011.558687} ^{Oteíza, T. (2017). The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. In C. Hart (ed.), Critical discourse studies in context and cognition (pp.125-140). John Benjamins Publishing.} ^{Parkinson, J., & Adendorff, R. (2004). The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 379–396.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.11.005} ^{Penrose, A., & Katz, S. (1998). Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. New York: St. Martin's Press.} ^{Pinto, B., Marḉal, D., & Vaz, S. (2015). Communicating through humor: A project of stand-up comedy about science. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 776–793.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513511175} ^{Ren, F., & Zhai, J. (2014). Communication and popularization of science and technology in China. London: Springer.}^{https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-39561-1} ^{Riesch, H. (2014). Why did the proton cross the road? Humor and science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 768–775.}^{https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514546299} ^{Russell, N. (2010). Communicating science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.} ^{Saidi, M., Cheraghi, Z., & Mousavi, M. (2021). A comparative analysis of the role of audience on discursive practices in academic research articles and popular science articles in light of Appraisal Theory. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(4), 47–58.}^{https://doi.org/10.30473/il.2022.57615.1439} ^{Sapp, G. (1995). Building a popular science library collection for high school to adult learners: issues and recommended resources. USA: Greenwood Press.}^{https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED385296} ^{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.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.009} ^{Stekolschik, G., Draghi, C., Adaszko, D., & Gallardo, S. (2010). Does the public communication of science influence scientific vocation? Results of a national survey. Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), 498–315.}^{https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509335458} ^{Turney, J. (1996). Public understanding of science. The Lancet, 347(9008), 1087–1090.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90283-4} ^{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.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(98)00007-6} ^{White, P. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, University of Sydney.} ^{White, P. (2015). Appraisal Theory. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie C & T. Sandel (eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken.} ^{Ye, Y. (2021). From abstracts to “60-second science” podcasts: Reformulation of scientific discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 53, 101025.} ^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101025} ^{Zhang, G. (2015). It is suggested that ….. or it is better to….? Forms and meanings of subject it- extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20(1), 1–13.}^{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.004}
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 45 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 25

سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. طراحی و پیاده سازی از سیناوب

پیوندهای مفید

پیوندهای مفید

اخبار و اعلانات

آمار

Appraisal Resources in Science Communication: Astrophysics Discourse in Academia and Media