Discourse Studies

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to register for SAGE Language and Linguistics journals

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MYERS, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Discourse Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, 265-279 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1461445603005002006

Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries

GREG MYERS

lancaster university g.myers{at}lancs.ac.uk

This article critiques the `dominant view' of the popularization of science that takes it as a one-way process of simplification, one in which scientific articles are the originals of knowledge that is then debased by translation for a public that is ignorant of such matters, a blank slate. Recent work is surveyed in several disciplines that questions the boundaries of scientific discourse and genres of popularization: who the actors are, how the discourses interact, what modes are involved, and what is communicated. Implications are drawn from these studies for discourse analysis.

Key Words: popularization • scientific discourse


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Business and Technical CommunicationHome page
A. Koerber, E. J. Arnett, and T. Cumbie
Distortion and the Politics of Pain Relief: A Habermasian Analysis of Medicine in the Media
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, July 1, 2008; 22(3): 364 - 391.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Discourse StudiesHome page
J. M. de Oliveira and A. S. Pagano
The research article and the science popularization article: a probabilistic functional grammar perspective on direct discourse representation
Discourse Studies, October 1, 2006; 8(5): 627 - 646.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
N. Pitrelli, F. Manzoli, and B. Montolli
Science in advertising: uses and consumptions in the Italian press
Public Understanding of Science, April 1, 2006; 15(2): 207 - 220.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Written CommunicationHome page
C. Eisenhart
The Humanist Scholar as Public Expert
Written Communication, April 1, 2006; 23(2): 150 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Health (London)Home page
M. Horton-Salway
The Local Production of Knowledge: Disease Labels, Identities and Category Entitlements in ME Support Group Talk
Health (London) , July 1, 2004; 8(3): 351 - 371.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Written CommunicationHome page
D. Charney
Introduction: The Rhetoric of Popular Science
Written Communication, January 1, 2004; 21(1): 3 - 5.
[PDF]


Home page
Written CommunicationHome page
J. Fahnestock
Preserving the Figure: Consistency in the Presentation of Scientific Arguments
Written Communication, January 1, 2004; 21(1): 6 - 31.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Written CommunicationHome page
D. Paul
Spreading Chaos: The Role of Popularizations in the Diffusion of Scientific Ideas
Written Communication, January 1, 2004; 21(1): 32 - 68.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Written CommunicationHome page
D. Charney
Lone Geniuses in Popular Science: The Devaluation of Scientific Consensus
Written Communication, July 1, 2003; 20(3): 215 - 241.
[Abstract] [PDF]