Rhetorical evolution of oppositional discourse in French academic writing. Oppositional discourse in academic writing

We here analyze the quantitative and qualitative evolution of academic conflict (AC) in a corpus of 90 medical articles published between 1810 and 1995. The linguistic means expressing AC were recorded in each paper and classified according to whether they expressed a direct or an indirect conflict.  The frequency of each category of AC was first recorded in each paper, and then calculated per 20–year periods. Our results were analyzed using Chi–square tests. In the whole corpus, direct AC were more frequent than indirect ones (p = .0001). When analyzed per 20–year periods, our quantitative results allowed us to divide the 185 years studied into 2 distinct periods, the cutting–off point being the 1910’s when the frequency of indirect AC started a slow but continuous ascent. In each Block direct AC outnumbered indirect ones (p =.0001), but indirect AC were more frequent in Block B than in Block A (p = .039). A qualitative analysis of the AC recorded revealed that both 19th and 20th century AC were expressed in a personal, polemical and authoritarian manner, although the confrontational stance of late 20th century AC tends to be mitigated either by means of hedging expressions or through the shifting of person to object thematization. We conclude that when formulating their professional disagreement, French-speaking scientists have always been authoritative, categorical, direct and personal, although the tone of voice of confrontations tends to be more “low key” as we approach the turn of the 21st century

Medical case reports and titleology: a diachronic perspective (1840-2009)

This paper is a diachronic analysis of a corpus of 180 titles drawn from CRs published in the BMJ and the BMJ Case Reports between 1840 and 2009. The frequency of occurrence of 69 variables (e.g. title type and length, punctuation, grammatical and syntactic data, number of authors and collaboration practices) was recorded for each title. The corpus was divided into three blocks (1840-1850, 1920-1930 and 2009) and between-block comparisons were carried out. Our findings show that CR titles have evolved over the 160-year period studied in the sense that they have increased in length, syntactic complexity, semantic richness and title type diversity. Authorship patterns and collaboration practices have changed, too. Although internationalization of case reporting has increased over time, today’s preferred practice is still local collaboration. The only variable that has remained constant over the years is the nominal nature of CR titles. We put forth several social and scientific factors that could account for the various shifts observed. The non-informativeness of CR titles that persisted over time can be explained by the fact that CR authors are reluctant to give a generalization flavor to their findings based on single cases.This paper forms part of a wider research that is supported by Grant M-976-09-06A from the Scientific, Technological, Humanistic and Artistic Research Center (CDCHT) from the University of The Andes, Mérida (Venezuela)

Titles are "serious stuff": a historical study of academic titles

In this paper we carried out a diachronic analysis (1840-2009) of a corpus of 180 medical case report titles drawn from the British Medical Journal. We analyzed a series of quantitative variables (number of authors and their institutional affiliation, title length, and punctuation/grammatical data) and qualitative variables (authors’ collaboration and types of titles). The results of our research show various shifts over the period studied that could be attributed to the following factors: 1) the progressive professionalization of medicine; 2) the need of disciplinary teams to conduct an ever-increasing complex research; and 3) the increased specialization and the growing complexity of medical science. The only variable that has remained constant over the years is the nominal nature of case report titles. It could then be stated that case report titles would distinguish themselves from research article titles, which are being characterized by a certain tendency towards verbalization

Género y crítica en la prosa médica escrita en español: Función comunicativa y relación de poder

This study addresses the issue of academic conflict (AC) in four different genres of medical discourse, viz., editorials, review and research papers and case reports. The rhetorical strategies used to convey AC were recorded and their qualitative features (their level of commitment or detachment, their overall tone, the presence of irony, sarcasm, etc.) were analyzed in 40 medical articles written in Spanish in the last decade of the 20th century. Our results show that the communicative function of each genre and the rank/status power relations that exist between authors and their audience have a direct bearing on the way medical researchers express their dissension

Effects of an antenatal mindfulness-based childbirth and parenting programme on the postpartum experiences of mothers : a qualitative interview study

Applications of mindfulness during the perinatal period have recently been explored and appear to offer a decrease in stress, anxiety and depression during this period. However, it still remains unclear what practical use women make of mindfulness during the postpartum period and the mechanisms through which it works. The subjective experience of mindfulness practice by mothers is not fully understood. The aim of the present study was to explore how women enrolled in a "Mindfulness-Based Childbirth and Parenting programme" experienced mindfulness practice during the postpartum period

From self-highlightedness to self-effacement: a genre-based study of the socio-pragmatic function of criticism in medical discourse.

Research has shown that critically attacking others' work in contemporary science is a very sensitive issue and that the linguistic strategies used to convey academic conflict are not only discipline-specific, but also epoch- and language/culturebound. Little is known, however, on the influence of genre on the linguistic realization of professional disagreement. In order to determine whether and in what way the communicative/situational function of different genres, the level of knowledge claim characteristic of each genre and the rank/status power relations that exist between authors and their audience have a bearing on the way medical researchers express their dissension, we 'transversally' analyzed the linguistic expressions used to convey disagreement in the four main genres of health communication, viz., research articles (RP), review articles (RV), editorials (ED) and case reports (CR). Towards that end, we randomly selected 50 articles (ED, RP, RV and CR) recently published in mainstream English-written medical periodicals. Critical speech acts were recorded in each article and qualitatively analyzed as to their tone (outright vs. veiled), itself reflected in the discursive choices made to criticize cited sources. The results of the present study show that editorialists (who are considered by the scientific community as critical expert knowledge-holders) express their criticisms in a direct, authoritarian, highly personal and frequently ironic, condescending and/or sarcastic tone. Authors of RV (who play the role of critical expert knowledge-holders and builders) also tend to voice their disagreement in a categorical and assured way but without emotionally involving themselves. By contrast, RP writers, who adopt the role of rather self-effaced knowledge-builders, convey their critical comments in an apparently humble and unimposing tone. Finally, the situational context of CR impose upon their authors (who are mostly narrators-reporters) a very low-key profile which, in turn, explains the scarcity of criticism in that particular genre. A 'polemical cline' -- from blunt criticism (ED and RV) to hardly any dissension at all (CR) through 'politically correct' critical comments (RP)-- was then clearly put to the fore. That cline can be accounted for by the social role and/or the position of authority assumed by the researchers in each genre and their responsibility as knowledge-holders, builders and/or decision-orientators