Keywords
stance
scientific discourse
subjectivity
intersubjectivity
How to Cite
Abstract
This paper aims to analyse the concepts of subjectivity and intersubjectivity in scientific writing through the use of stance adverbs perhaps and possibly. These adverbs act as markers of the authors’ presence expressing their views, and a covert relationship between these authors and their corresponding readership. The material used for this study includes four sub-corpora of the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing: CETA (Corpus of English Texts on Astronomy), CEPhiT (Corpus of English Philosophy Texts), CHET (Corpus of English History Texts), and CELiST (Corpus of English Life Sciences Texts). Two of these represent the so-called soft sciences, and the other two the hard sciences, which will allow for comparison. The results might argue against the generally-assumed tendency in the history of scientific writing that this discourse has moved from being author-centred to object-centred. Perhaps it is simply impossible for writers of science to disappear completely from their texts.
References
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco & Inés Lareo. 2016. The status of seem in the nineteenth-century Corpus of English Philosophy Texts (CEPhiT). In Isabel Moskowich, Gonzalo Camiña, Inés Lareo & Begoña Crespo (eds.), ‘The conditioned and the unconditioned’: Late Modern English texts on philosophy, John Benjamins. 145–165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.198.08alo
Atkinson, Dwight. 1999. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Routledge.
Benjamin, Jessica. 1988. The bonds of love: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and the problem of domination. Pantheon.
Bennett, Karen. 2009. English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8(1). 43–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.12.003
Benveniste, Emile. 1971. Problemas de lingüística general. Siglo Veinitiuno.
Closs Traugott, Elisabeth. 2002. From etymology to historical pragmatics. In Donka Minkova & Robert Stockwell (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: Millennial perspectives, Mouton de Gruyter. 19–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197143.1.19
Closs Traugott, Elisabeth. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, De Gruyter Mouton. 29–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226102.1.29
Coates, Jennifer. 2015. Women, men and language. A sociolinguistic account of gender differences in language (3rd edn.). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835778
Crespo, Begoña. 2015. Women writing science in the eighteenth century: A preliminary approach to their language in use. Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies. 24(2). 103–127.
Crespo, Begoña. 2017. Creating an identity of persuasion in history texts. In Francisco Alonso-Almeida (ed.), Stancetaking in Late Modern English scientific writing. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus. Essays in honour of Santiago González y Fernández-Corugedo, Universitat Politècnica de Valéncia. 41–55.
Crespo, Begoña. 2018. Women’s presence in scientific texts and prefatory material: keeping track of persuasion. Unpublished paper presented at the 10th CILC Conference, University of Cáceres, Spain.
Crespo, Begoña, 2019. How intimate was the tone of female history writing in the Modern period? Evidence from the Corpus of History English Texts. In Isabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Luis Puente-Castelo & Leida Maria Monaco (eds.), Writing history in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus, John Benjamins. 186–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.225.10cre
Dossena, Marina. 2017. A matter of opinion: Stancetaking in Late Modern English historiography. In Francisco Alonso-Almeida (ed.), Stancetaking in Late Modern English scientific writing. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus. Essays in honour of Santiago González y Fernández-Corugedo, Universitat Politècnica de Valéncia. 27–39.
Ferrari, Lilian & Paloma de Almeida. 2015. Subjectivity and intersubjectivity in conditionals: Temporal backshifting strategies in Brazilian Portuguese. Alfa: Revista de Linguística 59(1). 91–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1502-4
Habermas, Jürgen. 1970. Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 13(1–4). 360–375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747008601597
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. John Benjamins. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8). 1091–1112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, Ken. 2010. Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic journal of English Studies 9(2). 125–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220
Hyland, Ken. 2012. Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009406512
Hyland, Ken. 2015. Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19. 32–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005
Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2007. Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies 26(6). 699–731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.029
Lakoff, Robin, 1973. Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2(1). 45–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500000051
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 5–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
López-Couso, María José. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical pragmatics, De Gruyter Mouton. 127–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214284.3.127
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, John Wiley & Sons. 101–124.
Moskowich, Isabel. 2013 Eighteenth century female authors: Women and science in the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Australian Journal of Linguistics 33(4). 467–487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2013.857570
Moskowich, Isabel. 2017. Genre and change in the Corpus of History English Texts. Nordic Journal of English Studies 16(3). 84–106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.413
Moskowich, Isabel. 2018. A corpus-based approach to female involvement in the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Unpublished paper presented at the 10th CILC Conference, University of Cáceres, Spain.
Moskowich, Isabel. 2019. An Introduction to CHET, the Corpus of History English Texts. In Isabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Luís Puente-Castelo & Leida Maria Monaco (eds.), Writing history in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus, John Benjamins, 42–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/z.225.03mos
Moskowich, Isabel & Begoña Crespo. 2014. Stance is present in scientific writing, indeed. Evidence from the Coruña Corpus of English Scientific Writing. Token: A Journal of English Linguistics 3. 91–114.
Nuyts, Jan. 2015. Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization. Journal of Pragmatics 86. 106–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015
Ochs, Elinor & Bambi Schieffelin. 1989. Language has a heart. Text 9(1). 7–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7
Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2009. Oxford University Press. (accessed on 28/11/2017)
Pearce, Celia. 2011. Communities of play: Emergent cultures in multiplayer games and virtual worlds. MIT Press.
Puente-Castelo, Luís. 2017. On conditionality: A corpus-based study of conditional structures in Late Modern English scientific texts. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidade da Coruña.
Puente-Castelo, Luis & Leida Maria Monaco. 2016. ʽit is proper ſubſerviently, to inquire into the nature of experimental chemiſtry’: Difficulties in reconciling discipline-based characteristics and compilation criteria in the selection of samples for CECheT. In Antonio Moreno Ortiz & Chantal Pérez-Hernández (eds.), CILC2016. 8th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics, EPiC. 1.351–360.
Scheibman, Joanne. 2001. Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In Joan L. Bybee & Paul J. Hopper, (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, John Benjamins. 61–89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.04sch
Seale, Clive (ed.). 2004. Researching society and culture (2nd edn.). Sage Publications.
Suzuki, Daisuke. 2018. The semantics and pragmatics of modal adverbs: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of perhaps. Lingua 205. 40–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.12.014
Verhagen, Arie. 2006. Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford University Press.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.