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)

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

Le discours aigre-doux de la controverse scientifique : évolution de la rhétorique des confrontations académiques

Afin de déterminer l'évolution qualitative et quantitative des références critiques (rCr) et non critiques (rNCr) dans le discours médical du XIXe et du XXe siècle écrit en anglais, nous avons analysé un corpus de 90 articles médicaux publiés entre 1810 et 1995. Les résultats quantitatifs globaux indiquent que les rNCr sont significativement plus fréquentes que les rCr (p=.0001) mais que, lorsque le corpus est analysé de façon diachronique, celui-ci peut être divisé en deux blocs très distincts : A (1810-1929) et B (1930-1995). La proportion rNCr/rCr reste constante pendant les 120 premières années étudiées, mais change radicalement à partir des années 1930. Nos données qualitatives montrent que les rCr du XIXe siècle sont formulées d'une façon beaucoup plus directe, personnelle et « responsable » que celles du XXe siècle. L'évolution constatée du ton des rCr reflète l'évolution d'une médecine individuelle et anecdotique vers une médecine professionnelle et compétitive, où les scientifiques sentent le besoin impérieux de « sauver leur propre face » ainsi que celle de leurs opposants.In order to determine the quantitative and qualitative evolution of critical (rCr) vs. non-critical (rNCr) references in 19th and 20th century English medical discourse, we analyzed a corpus of 90 medical articles published between 1810 and 1995. Our quantitative results show that in the corpus as a whole rNCr significantly outnumber rCr (p= .0001). Proportionally speaking, rCr were significantly more frequent between 1810-1929 than between 1930-1995 (p=.0001). The rNCr/rCr ratio remained rather constant for the first 120 years studied, but it changed dramatically from the 1930's on. Our qualitative findings reveal that 19th and early 20th century Cr were formulated in a much more direct, involved, personal and author-responsible manner than their mid- and late 20th century counterparts, It can thus be concluded that the evolution of the tone of voice of rCr over the 185 years studied mirrors the shift from an author-centered and privately-based medicine to a fact-invoking, professionalized and highly competitive scientific community

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

Market-Place, Self-Confidence and Criticism in Medical Editorials

El fenómeno pragmático de la discrepancia o crítica académica se ha tratado desde diferentes puntos de vista (cuantitativo, interdisciplinar, intercultural, interlingüístico, genérico y diacrónico). Este artículo analiza la realización lingüística y las características del discurso de las expresiones que manifiestan desacuerdo en un género de la prosa científica relativamente inexplorado aún: el editorial médico. Los resultados del estudio muestran que, en dicho género, tanto los rasgos retórico-pragmáticos de estas expresiones como el tono de las mismas, frecuentemente cargado de sarcasmo, ironía y superioridad, guardan relación con la función social del autor a quien se encarga el editorial, que suele ser alguien a quien la comunidad científica considera un experto con capacidad crítica y probada autoridad intelectual. Las mencionadas características son, a su vez, reflejo de la función argumentativa y persuasiva del editorial en el contexto de la profesión médica.The pragmatic phenomenon of academic conflict or criticism has been dealt with in the literature from different perspectives (quantitative, cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural/crosslinguistic, generic and diachronic). The present paper analyzes the linguistic formulation and discursive features of critical speech acts in a relatively unexplored meta-textual genre of scientific prose, viz., medical editorials (ED). The results obtained show that the rhetoricopragmatic features of critical speech acts in that particular debate-focused and essay-like genre (their assertiveness, unhedginess, authoritativeness, self-highlightedness and self-confidence) as well as their frequently sarcastic, ironic and condescending tone correlate with the social role of editorialists who are commissioned writers considered by the scientific community they belong to as advice givers, decision orientators and critical expert knowledge- holders /builders. These socio-discursive features, in turn, reflect the polemical, argumentative and persuasive communicative function of ED within the medical profession