BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN GENRES AND AUDIENCES: INTERACTION IN SCIENCE BLOGS

Maria Freddi

doi:10.5817/DI2020-2-9

BLURRING THE LINES BETWEEN GENRES AND AUDIENCES: INTERACTION IN SCIENCE BLOGS

Vol.13,No.2(2020)

Maria Freddi

https://doi.org/10.5817/DI2020-2-9

PDF

Abstract

Science blogs have been attracting the attention of linguists, rhetoricians and communications scholars alike as the discourse of science becomes more and more influenced by new digital media and more scientists engage in the practice of blogging for the purposes of knowledge dissemination and public engagement. The paper analyses writer-reader interaction in a corpus of blogs maintained by individual scientists, considering both posts and comments. The analysis is corpus-driven to the extent that it harnesses corpus linguistic tools for frequency observations to detect language patterns of interaction, but tries to interpret frequency in light of linguistic and rhetorical models of audience engagement in science popularization. The findings confirm a tendency of blogs to exploit all of the linguistic strategies of audience involvement already found in the literature, reader pronouns, questions and the conversational style typical of spoken science communication, testifying to the blurring of genres and audiences.

Keywords:
popular and professional science; science blogs corpus; audience engagement; language patterns of interaction

References

Angler, M. W. (2017) Science Journalism: An Introduction. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315671338

Askehave, I. and Nielsen, A. E. (2005) ‘Digital genres: A challenge to traditional genre theory.’ Information Technology & People 18(2), 120-141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840510601504

Beacco, J.-C., Claudel, C., Doury, M., Petit, G., and Reboul-Touré, S. (2002) ‘Science in media and social discourse: New channels of communication, new linguistic forms.’ Discourse Studies 4(3), 277-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040030201

Bell, A. (2012) ‘Has blogging changed science writing? Journal of Science Communication 11(1), 1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.11010302

Biber, D. Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Blanchard, A. (2011) ‘Science blogs in research and popularization of science: Why, how and for whom?’ In: Cockell, M., Billotte, J., Darbellay, F., Waldvogel, F. (eds) Common Knowledge: The Challenge of Transdisciplinarity. Lausanne: EPFL Press. 219-232.

Bondi, M. (2018) ‘Blogs as interwoven polylogues. The dialogic action game.’ Language and Dialogue 8(1), 43-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00004.bon

Brezina, V. (2018) Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899

Brezina, V., McEnery, T. and Wattam, S. (2015) ‘Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2), 139-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre

Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P., and McEnery, T. (2020). #LancsBox v.5.1 [software]. Available at: http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.

Büchi, M. (2017) ‘Microblogging as an extension of science reporting.’ Public Understanding of Science 26(8), 953-968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516657794

Fahnestock, J. (1986) ‘Accommodating science. The rhetorical life of scientific facts.’ Written Communication 3(3), 275-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088386003003001

Gallagher, J. R. (2018) ‘Considering the comments: Theorizing online audiences as emergent processes.’ Computer and Compositions 48, 34-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.03.002

Hoffmann, C. R. (2012) Cohesive Profiling: Meaning and Interaction in Personal Weblogs. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.219

Hyland, K. (2001) ‘Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles.’ Written Communication 18(4), 549-574. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005

Hyland, K. (2010) ‘Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2), 116-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003

Kouper, I. (2010) ‘Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities.’ Journal of Science Communication 9(1), Special Issue on Peer-to-peer and User-led Science. Online document. Retrieved on 9 December 2015 Available at http://jcom.sissa.it/. <https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09010202>. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.09010202

Luzόn, M. J. (2011) ‘Interesting post, but I disagree: social presence and antisocial behavior in academic weblogs.’ Applied Linguistics 32(5), 517-540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr021

Luzón, M. J. (2013a) ‘Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience.’ Written Communication 30(4), 428-457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610

Luzón, M. J. (2013b) ‘‘This is an erroneous argument’: Conflict in academic blog discussions.’ Discourse, Context and Media 2(2), 111-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2013.04.005

Luzón, M. J. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (2019) ‘Connecting traditional and new genres: Trends and emerging themes.’ In: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.308.01luz

Luzón, M. J. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (eds) Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1-18.

Mauranen, A. (2013) ‘Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet.’ Nordic Journal of English Studies 12(1), 7-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.274

Mehlenbacher, A. R. (2019) Science Communication Online. Engaging Experts and Publics on the Internet. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26818/9780814213988

Miller, C. R. and Fahnestock, J. (2013) ‘Genres in scientific and technical rhetoric.’ Poroi. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention 9(1), 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13008/2151-2957.1161

Miller, C. R. and Shepherd, D. (2004) ‘Blogging as social action: A genre analysis of the weblog.’ In: Gurak, L., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. and Reyman, J. (eds) Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.11mil

Miller, C. R. and Shepherd, D. (2009) ‘Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere.’ In: Giltrow, J. and Stein, D. (eds) Genres in the Internet. Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 263-291.

Myers, G. (2010) The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis. London and New York: Continuum.

Puschmann, C. and Mahrt, M. (2012) ‘Scholarly blogging: A new form of publishing or science journalism 2.0?’ In: Tokar, A., Beurskens, M., Keuneke, S., Mahrt, M., Peters, I., Puschmann, C., van Treek, T. and Weller, K. (eds) Science and the Internet. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press. 171-181.

Reid, G. and Anson, C. M. (2019) ‘Public- and expert-facing communication: A case study of polycontextuality and context collapse in Internet-mediated citizen science.’ In: Luzón, M. J. and Pérez-Llantada, C. (eds) Science Communication on the Internet. Old Genres Meet New Genres. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 239-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.308.11rei

Sinclair, J. (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walsh, L. (2015) ‘The double-edged sword of popularization: The role of science communication research in the Popsci.com comment shutoff.’ Science Communication 37(5), 658-669. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015581928

Metrics