Presented Discourse Analysis in Popular Science Narratives of Discovery
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
PRESENTED DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN POPULAR SCIENCE NARRATIVES OF DISCOVERY by OLGA A. PILKINGTON A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of English School of English, Drama, and American and Canadian Studies The University of Birmingham December 2015 i University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This thesis reports a study of presented discourse in popular science narratives of discovery in English. It focuses on the fictionalizing role of presented discourse. The thesis proposes minor adjustments to the existing models of presented discourse analysis, dividing discourse presentation into Public Discourse (speech/writing) and Private Discourse (thought). After exploring the forms and functions of discourse presentation in the narratives, the thesis concludes that Private Discourse prefers the forms commonly associated with non-fiction while assigning to them the functions most often observed in fiction. All the forms of discourse presentation in the narratives contain dramatizing properties, yet Public Discourse possesses the highest degree of dramatization. Private Discourse in the narratives possesses communicative properties generally assigned to speech/writing presentation exclusively. Private Discourse is more likely to communicate scientific hypotheses than reveal the inner worlds of actants. The thesis concludes with an examination of presented discourse outside the narratives of discovery. This analysis confirms the phenomena observed in the narratives and reveals a unique feature of presented discourse outside the narratives— the fictionalized reader—a fictional actant created using discourse presentation. The findings of the thesis present a strong argument in favour of fictionality in popular science. ii Acknowledgements I am indebted to Professor Susan Hunston, my supervisor, whose insight, advice, and encouragement made this work enjoyable and rewarding. My thanks also go to Professor Ace G. Pilkington, my husband, for his help and support throughout this project and for our enlightening discussions about popular science. I especially appreciate his patience and understanding during those long hours that I had to spend in my study. I also wish to thank Dr. Alexander Ivanchenko and Dr. Natalia Ivanchenko, my parents, for setting me on the path to science but not discouraging my deviation from it. To them I am grateful for the inspiration behind the topic of this thesis. To Dr. Natalia Ivanchenko I also owe thanks for her expert explanation of all the computer and software-related issues that came up during the writing of the thesis. Last, but not least, I thank my colleagues at Dixie State University: Dr. Florence Bacabac, Dr. Sue Bennett, and Dr. Theda Wrede for sharing with me their own experiences in thesis writing; Joy Cooney, Terri Craig, and Amanda Scott for our discussions of the post-graduate experience; and finally, the library staff—and especially Diane Aldrich, who made sure I had all the hard-to-find sources I needed. iii Contents CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1. Research Questions and Outline of the Thesis…………………………………..1 1.2. Fictionality…………………………………………………………………………7 1.3. The Importance of Emotionality in Popular Science………………………….15 1.4. Fictionality and Professional Scientific Discourse: Implications for Popular Science…………………………………………………………………………….18 1.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….21 CHAPTER TWO PRESENTED DISCOURSE: A BRIEF OVERVIEW 2.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………22 2.2. General Role of Discourse Presentation in Fiction and Non-Fiction…………23 2.3. Existing Models of Discourse Presentation Analysis…………………………..26 2.3.1. Leech and Short’s (1981) Model……………………………………………..26 2.3.2. Semino and Short’s (2004) Model……………………………………………29 2.3.3. Short’s (2007, 2012) Commentary on the Semino and Short (2004) and Leech and Short (1981) Models……………………………………………………..36 2.4. The Framework for Presented Discourse Analysis of the Popular Science Corpus…………………………………………………………………………………42 2.5. Corpus Selection and Methodology…………………………………………….47 2.6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..51 CHAPTER THREE QUANTITATIVE CORPUS DATA: COMPARISON WITH SEMINO AND SHORT (2004) 3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………54 3.2. General Comparison of Frequency Information………………………………55 3.2.1. Public Discourse in the Narratives of Discovery and Speech/writing Presentation in Semino and Short (2004)…………………………………………..59 3.2.2. Private Discourse in the Narratives of Discovery and Thought Presentation in Semino and Short (2004)…………………………………………..64 3.3. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..68 iv CHAPTER FOUR DRAMATIZATION IN THE NARRATIVES OF DISCOVERY: THE ROLES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DISCOURSES 4.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………70 4.2. Dramatization in Presented Discourse: It Is Not Just (F)DS………………….73 4.2.1. Dramatization through NPSA and NPTA…………………………………...75 4.2.1.1. Dialogic NPSA……………………………………………………………….77 4.2.1.2. Strings of NPSA and Interaction of Discourse Presentation Types…..79 4.2.1.3. Borderline Dialogic NPSA………………………………………………....85 4.2.2. Dramatization through (F)DS: Emotionality………………………………90 4.2.3. Dramatization through (F)DS: Personal Perspective…………………....95 4.3. Dramatization through IS and FIS: Emotionality and Dialogue…………….97 4.4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….99 CHAPTER FIVE BEYOND DRAMATIZATION 5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..103 5.2. Hypotheses and Discoveries: Private Discourse Is Not So Private……….….106 5.2.1. Scientific Hypotheses: NPTA and IT…………………………………….…108 5.2.2. Introduction of Discoveries: IT……………………………………………..113 5.3. Non-Dramatizing Public Discourse: Explanation of Science……………...…119 5.3.1. Indirect Speech………………………………………………………….…….119 5.3.2. Narrator’s Presentation of Speech Acts…………………………………...124 5.3.3. (Free) Direct Speech…………………………………………………………126 5.4. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...….133 CHAPTER SIX PRESENTED DISCOURSE OUTSIDE THE NARRATIVES OF DISCOVERY 6.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….136 6.2. Celebratory Discourse………………………………………………………….138 6.2.1. “A Neutrino Walks Into a Bar”: Humour in Presented Discourse…….139 6.2.2. “All Healthy Bodies Resemble Each Other, while Each Unhealthy Body is Unhealthy in its Own Way”: Literary References in Presented Discourse…..141 6.3. Speech Presentation versus Writing Presentation: Another Look………….143 6.4. Confirming the Fusion of Non-Fiction and Fiction-like Qualities of Presented Discourse in Popular Science…………………………………………...146 6.5. The Fictionalized Reader in Popular Science……………………………...….151 6.6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………....156 v CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION 7.1. Goals and Achievements of the Thesis: From Questions to Answers……….159 7.2. Practical Applications, Theoretical Contributions, and Methodological Suggestions of the Thesis…………………………………………………………....164 7.2.1. Public and Private Discourses……………………………………………...165 7.2.2. Insights for Writers…………………………………………………………..169 7.2.3. The Fictionalized Reader……………………………………………………172 7.2.4. Celebrating Science…………………………………………………………173 7.3. Limitations of the Thesis and Future Research………………………….…..175 7.4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….…..179 vi List of Tables Table 3.1.a. Frequency of Private and Public Discourse Presentation in the Narrative of Discovery Table 3.1.b. Semino and Short’s Frequency Counts for Speech/Writing and Thought Presentation Table 3.2. Speech/writing to Thought Presentation Ratios (Semino and Short 2004) Compared with Public to Private Discourse Ratios Table 3.3.Comparison of Public Discourse Frequencies in the Narratives of Discovery with the Speech/Writing Frequencies in the Semino and Short (2004) Whole Corpus Table 3.4. Types and Frequency of Public Discourse Presentation in the Narratives of Discovery Table 3.5.a. Frequency Counts for Quotation Phenomena in Semino and Short (2004) Table 3.5.b. Frequency Counts for Quotation Phenomena in the Popular Science Narratives of Discovery Table 3.6. Comparison of Private Discourse Frequencies in the Narratives of Discovery with Thought Presentation Frequencies in the Semino and Short (2004) Whole Corpus Table 3.7. Comparison of Private Discourse Frequencies in the Narratives of Discovery with Thought Presentation Frequencies in the Semino and Short (2004) Non-fiction Section Table 3.8. Types and Frequency of Private Discourse Presentation in the Narratives of Discovery Table 6.1. Discourse Presentation Types Used to Create the Fictionalized Reader vii viii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1. Research Questions and Outline of the Thesis The present module continues the linguistic analysis of popular science books that was initiated in Modules One and Two. The three modules address the issues of science presentation to the public, the authors’ influence on the reader, and how it shapes the reader’s perception of science and scientists. Module One focused on the definitions of scientific terminology in popular science texts. It explored the