Imagery in Scientific Discourse

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article is an overview of the problems on the topic of figurativeness in scientific discourse. The analysis was carried out in three perspectives: “conceptual” - the key ideas about the role of figurativeness in the formation of scientific discourse (about metaphorical schemes that lie in the processes of thinking and scientific conceptualization, about the need to identify and analyze these schemes in science, about the role of comparison and analogy in the conceptual and semantic deployment of scientific discourse); “narrative” - the ideas about the function of figurativeness in the development of the author’s ontology are considered (the problems of constructing a rhetorical “Self” in scientific discourse, “self-identifying narrative”, “scientific identity”); “communicative” - the specificity of figurativeness is revealed in connection with the problem of knowledge transfer and modern strategies for popularizing science. It is shown that in the context of the modern identification of the “rhetoric” of scientific communication and discussion of strategies for science popularizing, the research topic is characterized by particular relevance. The analysis of figurativeness in scientific discourse touches upon the problem of the dialogue between science and society, which is important for our time, and how scientific achievements fit into socio-cultural and educational contexts. It is shown that the scientific significance of the study of figurativeness in scientific discourse is manifested in the fact that it allows, firstly, to expand the concept of “scientific”, revising the ideals of academic scientificity, often translating a view of science as an “emotionally emasculated” “substrate” of objective and transparent truth, and thereby overcome the existing communicative “barrier” between society and the scientific community; secondly, to rethink ideas about the communicative specifics of scientific creativity and the role of language in constructing the semantic and logical-methodological space of science.

About the authors

Natalya Yu. Kozlova

Moscow Pedagogical State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: nyu.kozlova@mpgu.su
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6418-6682

PhD in Philosophy

1/1, M. Pirogovskaya Str., Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation

References

  1. Nietzsche F. Darstellung der antiken Rhetorik. Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen. In: Bornmann F, Carpitella M, bearbeiter. Nietzsche Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter; 1995.
  2. Nietzsche F. Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinne. Available from: http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/-3243/1 (accessed on 09.06.2022).
  3. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors We Live by. Moscow: Editorial URSS Publ.; 2004. (In Russian).
  4. Grady J, Oakley T, Coulson S. Blending and Metaphor. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 1997.
  5. Krippendorff K. Major metaphors of communication and some constructivist reflections on their use. Cybernetics & Human Knowing. 1993;2(1):3—25.
  6. Hesse MB. Models and Analogies in Science. Paris: Press Notre Dame; 1966.
  7. Arbib MA, Hesse MB. The Construction of Reality. Сambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1986.
  8. Ricœur P. The Rule of metaphor. Study 8. Metaphor and reference. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology. 2015;4(1):175—219.
  9. Riejos A, Protasenia Y. Figurative language in academic and professional engineering. VI Congresso Internacional da AELFE. Lisbon; 2007. P. 498—506.
  10. Richardt S. Metaphor in languages for special purposes: The function of conceptual metaphor in written expert language and expert-lay communication in the domains of economics, medicine and computing. Berlin: Peter Lang GmbH, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften; 2005.
  11. De Man P. The Epistemology of Metaphor. Critical Inquiry. Special Issue on Metaphor. 1978;5(1):13—30. https://doi.org/10.1086/447970
  12. De Man P. Allegories of reading. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 1979.
  13. Lakoff G, Núñez R. Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being. New York: Basic Books; 2000.
  14. Mach E. Die Vergleichung als wissenschaftliches Prinzip. In: Prinzipien der Wärmelehre. Hamburg: Xenomoi Verlag; 2010. S. 396—405.
  15. Strub C. Eine These zur Geschichte der Ähnlichkeit. In: Hermeneutik des Vergleichs. Strukturen, Anwendungen und Grenzen komparativer Verfahren. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann; 2011. S. 243—267.
  16. Von Sass H. Vergleiche(n). Ein hermeneutischer Rundund Sinkflug. In: Hermeneutik des Vergleichs. Strukturen, Anwendungen und Grenzen komparativer Verfahren. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann; 2011. S. 25—47.
  17. Gutmann M, Rathgeber B. Vergleichen und Vergleich in den Wissenschaften. Exemplarische Rekonstruktionen zu einer grundlegenden Handlungsform. In: Hermeneutik des Vergleichs. Strukturen, Anwendungen und Grenzen komparativer Verfahren. Würzburg: Königshausen und Neumann; 2011. S. 49—75.
  18. Ricœur P. The Rule of metaphor. Study 8. metaphor and philosophical Discourse. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology. 2013;2(2):106—150. (In Russian).
  19. Vico G. Principles of a new science of the common nature of nations. Guber AA, transl. Moscow, Kiev: «REFL-book», «ISA» Publ.; 1994. (In Russian).
  20. Schlegel F. Philosophy of language and words. In: Aesthetics. Philosophy. Criticism. Vol. 2. Moscow: Iskusstvo Publ.; 1983. (In Russian).
  21. Derrida J. Fields of Philosophy. Kralechkina DYu, transl. Moscow: Akademicheskij Proekt Publ.; 2012. (In Russian).
  22. Neretina SS. Tropes and concepts. Available from: http://polittheory.narod.ru/ Neretina/Tropes_and_concepts/3.htm (accessed on 09.06.2022). (In Russian).
  23. Ivanič R. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 1998.
  24. Hyland K. Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics. 2002;34(8):1091—1112.
  25. Bertran GW. Rhetorik und Argumentation in der Philosophie. In: Handbücher Rhetorik. Handbuch Rhetorik und Philosophie. Vol. 9. Berlin, Munich, Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH; 2017. S. 451—471.
  26. Wallhead C. Metaphors for the self in A.S. Byatt’s «The Biographer’s Tale». Language and Literature. 2003;12(4):291—308. https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470030124001
  27. Lakoff G. Steps Toward a Neurocognitive Self: Conceptual Systems Research in the Twentyfirst Century and its Role in Rethinking What a Person Is. In: AEDEAN Select Papers in Language, Literature and Culture: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference. Vigo: University of Vigo Press; 2000. P. 47—57.
  28. Kozlova NYu. Metaphor and self-constitution of ego: language aspect. Humanities Research in the Russian Far East. 2016;3(37):101—108. (In Russian).
  29. Ervas F, Sangoi M. The Role of Metaphor in Argumentation. Metaphor and Argumentation. Isonomia, Online Journal of Philosophy — Epistemologica; 2014;(5):7—23.
  30. Hyland K. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 1998.
  31. Calsamiglia H, Van Dijk TA. Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. SAGE Publications. 2004;15(4):369—389. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0957926504043705
  32. Luzon M. Public Communication of Science in Blogs: Recontextualizing Scientific Discourse for a Diversified Audience. Written Communication. 2013;30(4):428—457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313493610
  33. Hyland K. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. English for Academic Purposes. 2010;9(2):116—127.
  34. Fu X, Hyland K. Interaction in two journalistic genres: a study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction. 2014;7(1):122—144.
  35. Pilkington O. The Language of Popular Science: Analyzing the Communication of Advanced Ideas to Lay Readers. Jefferson: McFarland & Company; 2018.
  36. Gross A. Starring the text. The place of Rhetoric in science studies. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press; 2006.
  37. Blanchard A. Science blogs in research and popularization of science: Why, how and for whom? In: Common Knowledge: The Challenge of Transdisciplinarity. Lausanne: EPFL Press; 2011. P. 219—232.
  38. Giannoni D. Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes. 2008;27(2):212—232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.12.001
  39. Beger А. Der Einsatz gezielter Metaphern in Lehrveranstaltungen im Hochschulbereich: ein Mittel zur Wissensvermittlung im Fach Psychologie. In: Korpuslinguistische Untersuchungen: Analysen einzelsprachlicher Phänomene. Berlin: Frank & Timme Verlag; 2013. S. 33—47.
  40. Littlemore J. The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students. Teaching in Higher Education. 2010;6(3):333—349. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120061205
  41. Low G, Littlemore J, Koester A. Metaphor use in three UK university lectures. Applied Linguistics. 2008;29(3):428—455. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn008

Copyright (c) 2023 Kozlova N.Y.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies