Technoscience has historically been endowed by modern societies with cultural authority, which has undergone significant questioning since the end of WWII. In this study, we consider technoscience communication in online newspapers to test whether its linguistic and communicative features differentiate it from other types of news, possibly reflecting greater cultural authority. Focusing on news in English versus Italian, we apply Multidimensional analysis to a comparable English-Italian online news corpus comparing technoscience-related articles with all remaining articles. Results indicate overall linguistic and communicative homogeneity between science and other domains. Nevertheless, small differences seem to suggest an effort to make technoscience accessible and engaging in English, whereas Italian technoscience-related news tends to be more formal and richer in specialised information.
AlmansaIR (2021) German-Spanish contrastive analysis for the translation of science journalism: Science popularization in news on coronavirus. Mutatis Mutandis14(1): 240–265.
2.
BartholomewDJSteeleFGalbraithJ, et al. (2008) Analysis of Multivariate Social Science Data. London, New York: CRC Press.
3.
BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (2018) Image, perception and cultural authority of science–by way of introduction. In:BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (eds) The Cultural Authority of Science. Milton Park: Routledge, pp.3–21.
Berber SardinhaTPintoMV (eds) (2014) Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
6.
BiberD (1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BiberD (1995) Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BiberDDaviesMJonesJK, et al. (2006) Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora1(1): 1–37.
9.
BisettoA (2010) Relational adjectives crosslinguistically. Lingue e linguaggio9(1): 65–85.
10.
BucchiM (2004) Science in Society: An Introduction to Social Studies of Science. Milton Park: Bucchi.
11.
BucchiMTrenchB (eds) (2014) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Milton Park: Routledge.
12.
BucchiMTrenchB (2016) Science communication and science in society: A conceptual review in ten keywords. Tecnoscienza (Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies)7(2): 151–168.
13.
CallonM (1984) Some elements of a sociology of translation. Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. Sociological Review32(1): 196–233.
14.
CallonM (1999) The role of lay people in the production and dissemination of scientific knowledge. Science Technology & Society4(1): 81–94.
CalsamigliaHvan DijkTA (2004) Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society15(4): 369–389.
17.
CammozzoADi BuccioENeresiniF, et al. (2020) Monitoring technoscientific issues in the News. In:KoprinskaI (ed.) ECML PKDD 2020 Workshops. Berlin: Springer, pp.536–553.
18.
CloîtreMShinnT (1985) Expository practice: Social, cognitive and epistemological linkages. In:ShinnTWhitleyR (eds) Expository Science. Forms and functions of popularization. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp.31–60.
19.
CooterRPumphreyS (1994) Separate spheres and public places: Reflections on the history of science popularization and science in popular culture. History of Science32(3): 237–267.
20.
CrabuSGiardulloPSciandraANeresiniF (2021) Politics overwhelms science in the Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from the whole coverage of the Italian quality newspapers. PloS one16(5): e0252034.
21.
Di BuccioECammozzoANeresiniF, et al. (2022) TIPS: search and analytics for social science research. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Joint Conference of the Information Retrieval Communities in Europe (CIRCLE 2022), Samatan, Gers, France, 4–7 July 2022, vol. 3178
22.
DiStefanoCZhuMMîndrilăD (2009) Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation14(20): 1–11.
23.
ElorzaI (2014) Newsworthiness, attribution and lexicogrammatical strategies in two types of news articles in English and Spanish. Topics in Linguistics14(1): 16–33.
24.
FahnestockJ (1986) Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication3(3): 275–296.
25.
FleckL (1979) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
26.
GarzoneG (2006) Perspectives on ESP and Popularization. Milano: CUEM.
27.
Gea-ValorMLGarcía-IzquierdoIEsteveMJ (eds) (2010) Linguistic and Translation Studies in Scientific Communication. Bern: Peter Lang.
28.
GottiM (2003) Specialized Discourse: Linguistic Features and Changing Conventions. Bern: Peter Lang.
29.
GottiM (2012) La riscrittura del testo da specialistico a divulgativo. Altre Modernità11: 145–159.
30.
GrossAG (1994) The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science3(1): 3–24.
31.
HallidayMAKMatthiessenCMIM (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
32.
HilgartnerSBoskCL (1988) The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology94(1): 53–78.
33.
HunstonS (2013) Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk33(4–5): 617–640.
34.
HylandK (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
35.
IncelliE (2018) Popularising the Higgs boson: A corpus-assisted approach to reporting scientific discovery in online media. Corpora13(2): 169–203.
36.
JakobsonR (1959) On linguistic aspects of translation. In:BrowerRA (ed.) On Translation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp.232–239.
37.
JASP Team (2021) JASP (Version 0.14.0.0). [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/ (accessed 03 July 2023).
38.
KabacoffR (2011) R in Action: Data Analysis and Graphics With R. Shelter Island; NY: Manning Publications.
39.
KamenovaK (2017) Media portrayal of stem cell research: Towards a normative model for science communication. Asian Bioethics Review9(3): 199–209.
40.
LatourB (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
LawJ (ed) (1991) A Sociology of Monsters. Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. Milton Park: Routledge.
42.
LeeDYW (2000) Modelling Variation in spoken and written English: The multi-dimensional approach revisited. PhD dissertation, Lancaster University, UK.
43.
LynchM (2020) We have never been anti-science: Reflections on science wars and post-truth. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society6: 49–57.
44.
MaeseelePADeneckereKPanisK, et al. (2015) The energy question in the Belgian daily press during 2010: The role of region, newspaper type and newspaper section. Journal of Communication Science14(1): 1–17.
45.
MahrtMPuschmannC (2014) Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Communication Science13(03): 1A05–1A17.
46.
MorfakisC (2017) Human Gene Mapping: The Mass Media Iconography of the Human Genome Project in the Most Popular Greek Newspapers. In:PetermannHIHarperPSDoetzS (eds) History of Human Genetics. Berlin: Springer, pp.285–315.
47.
MorleyGD (2000) Syntax in Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Lexicogrammar in Systemic Linguistics. London, New York: Continuum.
48.
Motta-RothDDos Santos LovatoC (2011) The hegemonic power of science in the scientific popularization discourse. Calidoscópio9(3): 251–268.
49.
Motta-RothDSchererAS (2016) Science popularization: Interdiscursivity among science, pedagogy, and journalism. Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos do Discurso11(2): 164–189.
50.
MyersG (2003) Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies5(2): 265–279.
51.
NeresiniF (2023) Technoscience. In:ColomboERebughiniP (eds) Framing Social Theory. Milton Park, New York: Routledge, pp.123–138.
52.
NeresiniFLorenzetA (2018) The great narrative: Analysing the cultural authority of science through media attention in Italy. In:BauerMWPansegrauPShuklaR (eds) The Cultural Authority of Science. Milton Park: Routledge, pp.155–170.
53.
NisbetMCScheufeleDAShanahanJ, et al. (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or Promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and Technology. Communication Research29(5): 584–608.
54.
PiantaEGirardiCZanoliR (2008) The TextPro tool suite. In: Proceedings of the 6th edition Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), Marrakech, Morocco, 28–30 May 2008.
55.
R Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed 10 October 2022).
56.
ScarpaF (2020) Research and Professional Practice in Specialised Translation. Hoboken, NJ: Palgrave Macmillan.
57.
ScheufeleDA (2013) Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(Supplement 3): 14040–14047.
58.
ShinnTWhitleyRP (eds) (1985) Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation. Berlin: Springer.
59.
SismondoS (2017) Post-truth?Social Studies of Science47(1): 3–6.
60.
StamatatosEFakotakisNKokkinakisG (2000) Text genre detection using common word frequencies. In: Proceedings of the 18th conference on computational linguistics, vol. 2, pp.808–814. Association for Computational Linguistics.
61.
StehrN (1994) Knowledge Societies. London: Sage.
62.
WinterE (2004) Public communication of science and technology: German and European perspectives. Science Communication25(3): 288–293.
63.
XiaoZMcEneryA (2005) Two approaches to genre analysis: Three genres in modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics33(1): 62–82.
64.
YeY (2021) From abstracts to “60-second science” podcasts: Reformulation of scientific discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes53: 101025.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
