A Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures: A Systemic Functional and Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Intersemiotic Evaluation in University Science Textbooks

Images are an invaluable medium in science textbooks for clarifying confusing concepts and establishing a visual foundation for field related topics. The integration of image and language within a single unit of discourse builds a larger meaning than the two semiotic forms are capable of producing separately. Visual representations are chosen for their functional value in aiding linguistic explanation and also for their aesthetic value in textual enhancement. Aesthetic choice is a matter of subjective opinion. Although science writing is generally classified as objective, authors embed personal opinion in written and visual discourse. The choice of visual medium has a profound effect on the author’s linguistic choices, which manipulates the reader’s interpretation of discourse. Through the application of the Systemic Functional Linguistic framework in conjunction with Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis to university undergraduate level science textbooks, analysis indicates that not only do science textbook authors use images to evaluate in-text subjects, but also to reference images with heightened subjectivity. Findings further demonstrate that science authors use evaluative language to direct reader interpretation of the image using patterns of evaluation which is contingent upon the medium of the image and the functional relationship between image and language

Annotating arguments in a corpus of opinion articles

Interest in argument mining has resulted in an increasing number of argument annotated corpora. However, most focus on English texts with explicit argumentative discourse markers, such as persuasive essays or legal documents. Conversely, we report on the first extensive and consolidated Portuguese argument annotation project focused on opinion articles. We briefly describe the annotation guidelines based on a multi-layered process and analyze the manual annotations produced, highlighting the main challenges of this textual genre. We then conduct a comprehensive inter-annotator agreement analysis, including argumentative discourse units, their classes and relations, and resulting graphs. This analysis reveals that each of these aspects tackles very different kinds of challenges. We observe differences in annotator profiles, motivating our aim of producing a non-aggregated corpus containing the insights of every annotator. We note that the interpretation and identification of token-level arguments is challenging; nevertheless, tasks that focus on higher-level components of the argument structure can obtain considerable agreement. We lay down perspectives on corpus usage, exploiting its multi-faceted nature

The Dimensions of Argumentative Texts and Their Assessment

The definition and the assessment of the quality of argumentative texts has become an increasingly crucial issue in education, classroom discourse, and argumentation theory. The different methods developed and used in the literature are all characterized by specific perspectives that fail to capture the complexity of the subject matter, which remains ill-defined and not systematically investigated. This paper addresses this problem by building on the four main dimensions of argument quality resulting from the definition of argument and the literature in classroom discourse: dialogicity, accountability, relevance, and textuality (DART). We use and develop the insights from the literature in education and argumentation by integrating the frameworks that capture both the textual and the argumentative nature of argumentative texts. This theoretical background will be used to propose a method for translating the DART dimensions into specific and clear proxies and evaluation criteria

The Changing Discourse of the Supreme Court

[Excerpt] “Academics, judges, and other commentators complain that, for the past few decades, the Justices on the Supreme Court have been increasingly writing opinions that are unreadable for most American citizens. Those critics complain that the opinions are too long and too complex, riddled with incomprehensible multi-part tests. They also attack the style of the opinions and assert that recent opinions are more likely to be written in a technocratic, rather than persuasive, style. There seems to be little consensus among the critics regarding why the Justices are writing opinions that are increasingly unreadable. Some attribute it to the increasing complexity of issues that the Court is considering. Others suggest that the shift could be attributable to the lack of trial court experience among Justices. Some also speculate that a greater reliance on law clerks might be fueling a shift. Regardless of the reason for the shift, if such a shift is truly occurring, it could have important repercussions, depending on how one views the purposes of the Supreme Court’s opinions and the audiences to whom they are directed. If, as some academics assert, Supreme Court opinions are directed, at least in part, toward the public and are designed, at least in part, to advise the public about legal rights and responsibilities and to build public confidence in the rule of law by demonstrating a rational and transparent decision-making process, then unreadable Supreme Court opinions undermine those goals. If, however, Supreme Court opinions are simply directed to the parties before the court, other courts and agencies, lawyers, and law students, the shift is less problematic.

Unamerican Views: Why US-developed models of press-state relations don't apply to the rest of the world

The article shows the limitations of the 'indexing' hypothesis, an influential conceptualization of state-press relations based on the notion that the media tend to reproduce the range of debate within political elites. The hypothesis, as confirmed by an international comparative investigation of the elite press coverage of 9/11 in the US, Italy, France, and Pakistan, cannot be applied outside the American context. The analysis finds that the variation in the levels of correlation between elite press coverage and governmental discourse are explained by previously neglected variables: national interest, national journalistic culture, and editorial policy within each media organization. The article argues that more international comparative research and multidisciplinary approaches are needed in order to renew old paradigms, especially at a time when the distinction between foreign and domestic politics is disappearing

MODALNOŚĆ EPISTEMICZNA – ANALIZA KORPUSOWA WYKŁADNIKÓW MODALNOŚCI EPISTEMICZNEJ W WYROKACH UNIJNYCH I KRAJOWYCH

The aim of this paper is to establish the repertoire and distribution of verbal and adverbial exponents of epistemic modality in English- and Polish-language judgments passed by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and non-translated judgments passed by the Supreme Court of Poland (SN). The study applies a model for categorizing exponents of epistemicity with regard to their (i) level (high-, medium- and low-level of certainty, necessity or possibility expressed by the markers; primary dimension), (ii) perspective (own vs. reported perspective), (iii) opinion (based either on facts or beliefs) and (iv) time (the embedding of epistemic markers in sentences relating to the past, present or future) (contextual dimensions). It examines the degree of intra-generic convergence of translated EU judgments and non-translated national judgments in terms of the employment of epistemic markers, as well as the degree of authoritativeness of judicial argumentation, and determines whether the frequent use of epistemic markers constitutes a generic feature of judgments. The research material consists of a parallel corpus of English- and Polish-language versions of 200 EU judgments and a corpus of 200 non-translated domestic judgments. The results point to the high salience and differing patterns of use of epistemic markers in both EU and national judgments. The frequent use of high-level epistemic markers boosts the authoritativeness of judicial reasoning.Celem pracy jest ustalenie zasobu i dystrybucji czasownikowych i przysłówkowych wykładników modalności epistemicznej w angielsko- i polskojęzycznych tłumaczeniach wyroków Trybunału Sprawiedliwości UE (CJEU) i nietłumaczonych wyrokach Sądu Najwyższego RP (SN). W badaniu wykorzystano model kategoryzacji wykładników modalności epistemicznej pozwalający na ich klasyfikację ze względu na (i) intensywność (wysoką, średnią bądź niską, tj. stopień pewności, konieczności albo prawdopodobieństwa wyrażany przez poszczególne wykładniki; wymiar podstawowy), (ii) perspektywę (własną bądź przytaczaną), (iii) opinię (opartą na faktach albo przekonaniu), a także (iv) czas (przeszły, teraźniejszy, przyszły) (wymiary kontekstowe). Badanie miało na celu ustalenie wewnątrzgatunkowego stopnia dopasowania tłumaczonych wyroków unijnych do nietłumaczonych wyroków krajowych pod względem występowania wykładników modalności epistemicznej, określenie stopnia autorytatywności argumentacji sędziowskiej oraz stwierdzenie, czy częste występowanie wykładników stanowi cechę gatunkową wyroków. Materiał badawczy obejmuje równoległy korpus 200 wyroków unijnych przetłumaczonych na język angielski i polski oraz korpus 200 wyroków krajowych. Wyniki badania wskazują na istotną wagę wykładników o wysokiej intensywności zarówno w wyrokach unijnych, jak i krajowych. Stwierdzono, że częste użycie wykładników modalności epistemicznej o wysokiej intensywności podnosi poziom autorytatywności argumentacji sędziowskiej

When Anonymous Controlling Professional Media: A Marginal Voice in Press Freedom Country

The emergence of citizen journalism get a skeptical response from professional journalists based on several reasons such as un-institutional, subjective and nonprofessional (O¨rnebring, 2013; Allan, 2009; Moyo, 2009). This study explores how mainstream media play dominant role in producing fact by excluding citizen journalist apart from their system. The object of the study is ‘Discourse’ about the banned of a controversial article1 written by an anonymous2 citizen journalist named Jilbab Hitam (here in after referred to as the ‘JH’)3 in kompasiana.com4. The issues widespread quickly in cyberspace produce pros cons among internet user including professional journalists, NGO, etc. This research employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) on articles and twitter conversations relevant to the issue. The results of the study show how anonymity becomes dominant Discourse submerging other important issue such us media manipulation and media corruption. Negative representation of anonymity – hoax, liar, provocative – might tend to hamper struggling of internet user freedom of expression

Media discourse on jihadist terrorism in Europe

This article analyzes the manner in which European print media discuss jihadist terrorism in Europe. It presents key results from a qualitative analysis of media discourse following three selected attacks in seven European countries in 2010: the attack on the cartoonist Westergaard, the Yemen cargo plane plot, and the Stockholm suicide attack. The article finds that attack type is a factor shaping media discourse across different media in Europe. Considering that terrorists also aim to impact discourse for their own agenda, the article presents implications for policy reactions on the basis of attack type, and not as desired by terrorists.Publisher PD