Studia Językoznawcze

synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badań polszczyzny


ISSN: 1730-4180     eISSN: 2353-3161    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sj.2021.20-12
CC BY-SA   Open Access   ERIH PLUS

Issue archive / t. 20, 2021
Knowledge and identity construction in medical weblogs: A study of epistemic predicates

Authors: Małgorzata Sokół ORCID
University of Szczecin, Szczecin
Keywords: medical weblog identity knowledge epistemic predicates
Data publikacji całości:2021
Page range:20 (161-180)
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

Following the discourse-based, interactional approaches to modality and identity, and recognizing that knowledge is social, relative and contextual, this paper aims to explore epistemic predicates in a corpus of Polish medical weblogs run by healthcare practitioners. The focus is put on the role of epistemic predicates in identity work performed by the bloggers and their audience. The study reveals the variety of the usage patterns of epistemic verbs, the diversity of the roles which healthcare practitioners act out in their blogs and the numerous purposes for which they engage in blogging. To construct their professional identity, healthcare practitioners draw on discursive strategies of distancing-mitigation, legitimization and self-disclosure. In this way, they position themselves as expert specialists who follow their professional ethos, as researchers who extend their knowledge and advice givers who are willing to share knowledge with their non-specialist audience and to educate their patients. They authenticate their expertise through references to their own medical practice and experience. The bloggers also aim to minimize the distance between their readers and engage in conversation with them. In response, the audience actively participates in the co-construction of knowledge and experience-sharing, and contributes to community building.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Ädel, Annelie. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006.
2.Atkinson, Dwight. Scientific discourse in sociohistorical context. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999.
3.Benwell, Bethan, Elizabeth Stokoe. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
4.Blanchard, Antoine. “Science blogs in research and popularization of science: Why, how, and for whom?” In: Common knowledge: The challenge of transdisciplinarity, ed. Moira Cockell, Jérôme Billotte, Frédéric Darbellay, Francis Waldvogel, 219–232. Lausanne: EPFL Press, 2011.
5.Bolander, Brook, Miriam A. Locher. “Doing sociolinguistic research on computer-mediated data: A review of four methodological issues”. Discourse, Context & Media 3 (2014): 14–26.
6.Brown, Penelope, Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
7.Crismore, Avon. Metadiscourse: What is it and how is it used in school and non-school social science texts. Urbana–Champaign: University of Illinois, 1983.
8.Dafouz-Milne, Emma. “Metadiscourse revisited: A contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse”. Regreso al metadiscurso: estudio contrastivo de la persuasión en el discurso profesional. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense 11 (2003): 29–52. http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/EIUC/article/view/EIUC0303110029A.
9.Danielewiczowa, Magdalena. Wiedza i niewiedza: Studium polskich czasowników epistemicznych. Warszawa: Katedra Lingwistyki Formalnej UW, 2002.
10.De Fina, Anna, Deborah Schiffrin, Michael Bamberg. Discourse and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
11.Englebretson, Robert, ed. Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2007.
12.Facchinetti, Roberta. “Modal verbs in news-related blogs: When the blogger counts”. In: English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, ed. Juana Isabel Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero Lapeyre, Jorge Arús Hita, Johan van der Auwera, 359–377. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2013.
13.Giner, Diana. “Rhetorical strategies of persuasion in the reasoning of international investment arbitral awards”. In: Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities, ed. Maria Ángeles Orts Llopis, Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti, 243–265. Bern: Peter Lang, 2017.
14.Grieve Jack, Biber Douglas, Friginal Eric, Nekrasova Tatiana. “Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis”. In: Genres on the web. Computational models and empirical studies, ed. Alexander Mehler, Serge Sharoff, Marina Santini, 303–322. Berlin: Springer, 2010.
15.Harré, Rom, Luk van Langenhove, eds. Positioning theory. Moral contexts of intentional action. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
16.Harvey, Kevin, Nelya Koteyko. Exploring health communication. Language in action. London–New York: Routledge, 2013.
17.Herring, Susan, Ann Lois Scheidt, Sabrina Bonus, Elijah Wright. “Weblogs as a bridging genre”. Information, Technology & People 18 (2005), 22: 142–171.
18.Hidalgo Downing, Laura, Begoña Núñez Perucha. “Modality and personal pronouns as indexical markers of stance: Intersubjective positioning and construction of public identity in media interviews”. In: English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, ed. Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero, Jorge Arús Hita, Johan van der Auwera, 379–410. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2013.
19.Hübler, Axel. Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1983.
20.Hunston, Susan, Geoff Thompson, eds. Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
21.Hyland, Ken. Metadiscourse. London–New York: Continuum, 2005.
22.Hyland, Ken. “Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles”. Applied Linguistics 17 (1996), 4: 433–454.
23.Kärkkäinen, Elise. Epistemic stance in English conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on “I think”. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003.
24.Luzón, Maria José. “Recontextualising expert discourse in weblogs: Strategies to communicate health research to experts and the interested public”. In: Insights into medical communication, ed. Maurizio Gotti, Stefania Maria Maci, Michele Sala, 331–351. Bern: Peter Lang, 2015.
25.Maci, Stefania Maria, Michele Sala, Maurizio Gotti. “Introduction”. In: Insights into medical communication, ed. Maurizio Gotti, Stefania Maria Maci, Michele Sala, 9–24. Bern: Peter Lang, 2015.
26.Marín-Arrese, Juana I. “Effective vs. epistemic stance and subjectivity in political discourse: Legitimising strategies and mystification of responsibility”. In: Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, ed. Christopher Hart, 193–223. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2011.
27.Marín-Arrese, Juana I. “Stancetaking and inter/subjectivity in the Iraq Inquiry: Blair vs. Brown”. In: English modality: Core, periphery and evidentiality, ed. Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Marta Carretero,
28.Jorge Arús Hita, Johan van der Auwera, 411–445. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2013.
29.Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Laura Hidalgo Downing, Silvia Molina. “Evidential, epistemic and deontic modality in English and Spanish: The expression of writer stance in newspaper discourse”. In: English modality in perspective: Genre analysis and contrastive studies, ed. Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer, 121–139. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004.
30.Markham, Anette, Elizabeth Buchanan. “Ethical decision-making and Internet research. Recommendations from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version2.0)” (2012). http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf.
31.Markkanen, Raija. “Hedging and modality”. In: Probleme der Modalität in der Sprachforschung (Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensia 23), ed. Ahti Jäntti. Jyväskylä, 137–148. Jyväskylä University Press, 1989.
32.Markkanen, Raija, Hartmut Schröder. “Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis”. In: Hedging and discourse. Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts, ed. Raija Markkanen, Hartmut Schröder, 3–18. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.
33.Martin, James R., Peter R.R. White. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
34.Myers, Greg. The discourse of blogs and wikis. London: Continuum, 2010.
35.Myers, Greg. “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles”. Applied Linguistics 10 (1989): 1–35.
36.Nuyts, Jan. Epistemic modality, language and conceptualization. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.
37.Palmer, Frank Robert. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
38.Prestin, Abby, Wen-ying S. Chou. “Web 2.0 and the changing health communication environment”. In: The Routledge handbook of language and health communication, ed. Heidi E. Hamilton, Wen-ying S. Chou, 184–197. New York: Routledge, 2014.
39.Prince, Ellen F., Joel Frader, Charles Bosk. “On hedging in physician-physician discourse”. In: Linguistics and the professions. Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies, ed. Robert J. di Pietro. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1982.
40.Puschmann, Cornelius. “Blogging”. In: The handbook of pragmatics of computer-mediated communication, ed. Susan. C. Herring, Dieter Stein, Tuija Virtanen, 83–108. Berlin–New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2013.
41.Puschmann, Cornelius, Merja Mahrt. “Scholarly blogging: A new form of publishing or science journalism 2.0?” In: Science and the Internet, ed. Alexander Tokar, Michael Beurskens, Susanne Keuneke, Merja Mahrt, Isabella. Peters, Cornelius Puschmann, Timo van Treeck, Katrin Weller, 171–181. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press, 2012.
42.Rettberg, Jill W. Blogging. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008.
43.Salager-Meyer, Françoise. “Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse”. English for Specific Purposes 13 (1994): 149–170.
44.Sokół, Małgorzata. “‘Have you wondered why sportspeople die?’ The medical weblog as a popularisation tool”. Discourse, Context & Media 25 (2018): 13–24.
45.Sowińska, Agnieszka. “‘Even if there were procedures, we will be acting at our own discretion...’ General practitioners’ struggle about identity”. In: Identity struggle: Evidence from workplaces across the world, ed. Dorien Van Den Mieroop, Stephanie Schnurr, 281–298. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2017.
46.Stermieri, Anna. “Knowledge dissemination in genetics blogs”. In: Insights into medical communication, ed. Maurizio Gotti, Stefania Maria Maci, Michele Sala, 391–413. Bern: Peter Lang, 2015.
47.Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London–New York: Longman, 1995.
48.Thompson, Geoff, Laura Alba-Juez, eds. Evaluation in context. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2014.
49.Turnbull, Judith. “Knowledge dissemination online: The case of health information”. In: Insights into medical communication, ed. Marina Bondi, Silvia Cacchiani, Davide Mazzi, 290–314. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016.
50.van Dijk, Teun A. Discourse and knowledge: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
51.Vande Kopple, William. “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication 36 (1985): 82–93.
52.Varttala, Teppo. “Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist research articles on medicine”. English for Specific Purposes 18 (1999), 2: 177–200.
53.Vázquez, Ignacio, Diana Giner. “Contrastive study of international commercial arbitration awards and court judgments: Intertextuality through metadiscourse in action”. In: Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realisations, ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone, Chiara Degano, 171–191. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012.
54.White, Peter R.R. “Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse – a new framework for analysis”. In: Mediating ideology in text and image: Ten critical studies, ed. Inger Lassen, 37–69. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2006.