Rhetorical Communication in the CogSci Discourse Community: The Cognitive Neurosciences (2004) in the Context of Scientific Dissemination
Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32920
Rhetorical Communication in the CogSci Discourse Community: The Cognitive Neurosciences (2004) in the Context of Scientific Dissemination

Authors: Lucia Abbamonte, Olimpia Matarazzo


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.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1061846

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1366


[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.