Constructing Carcinogen Risk in Scientific Discourse Through Ideological Conflict: A Cognitive Pragmatic Analysis
Keywords:axiological proximization, carcinogen, cognitive pragmatics, proximization theory, scientific discourse
With the increasing rates of cancer worldwide, a great deal of scientific discourse is devoted to arguments and statements about cancer and its causes. Scientists from different fields try to seize any available chance to warn people of the risk of consuming and exposing to carcinogens that have, unfortunately, become essential parts of modern life. The present paper attempts to investigate the proximization strategy through which scientists construct carcinogen risk to enhance people’s preventive actions against these carcinogens. The paper targets the construction which depends on producing the conflict between the values of the people themselves and the contrasting values assigned to carcinogens. To achieve this aim, Cap’s (2013) cognitive pragmatic theory of proximization is employed for analysis. The theory is a component of three proximization strategies: spatial, temporal and axiological. Of these three proximization strategies, axiological proximization strategy is applied to a corpus from scientific discourse. To arrive at more objective results, the analysis procedure is both qualitative and quantitative. Mathematical calculations are performed through corpus linguistics using Anthony’s AntConc (2019) corpus linguistics software. Eventually, the paper has arrive at certain conclusions that reveal the way actors (producers of scientific discourse) utilize axiological proximization strategy to portray carcinogen risk as a means for promoting people to take preventive measures.
AntConcFileConverter. Retrieved December 8, 2021, from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc. Retrieved December 8, 2021, from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Arafa M. A.; Rabah D. M. & Farhat K. H. (2020). Rising Cancer Rates In the Arab World: Now Is the Time for Action. East Mediterr Health J. 26(6):638- 640. https://doi.org/10.26719/emhj.20.073
Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Process of Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cap, P. (2005). Language and Legitimization: Developments in the Proximization Model of Political Discourse Analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 1, 7–36.
Cap, P. (2006). Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cap, P. (2014). Applying Cognitive Pragmatics to Critical Discourse Studies: A Proximization Analysis of Three Public Space Discourses. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 16- 30.
Cap, P. (2018). Spatial Cognition. In J. Flowerdew and J. Richardson (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 92–105). London: Routledge.
Cap, P. (2020). Representation, Conceptualization and Positioning in Critical Discourse Analysis. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 272–294.
Carcinogen. (2008). Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Carcinogen. Retrieved November 11, 2021, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/carcinogenic
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallai, F. (2019). Cognitive Pragmatics and Translation Studies. In R. Tipton, & L. Desilla (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics (pp. 51- 72). London: Routledge.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). London: Academic Press.
Hanauer, D. I. (2006). Scientific Discourse Multiliteracy in the Classroom. London: Continuum.
Hao, J. (2020). Analysing Scientific Discourse From a Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective: A Framework for Exploring Knowledge-building in Biology. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Hart, C. (2018). Cognitive Linguistic Critical Discourse Studies. In J. Flowerdew and J. Richardson (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 77–91). London: Routledge.
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pohanish, R. P. (2002). Sittig’s Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Crcinigens. New York: William Andrew Publishing.
Schmid, H. J. (2012). Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable. Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context. In Schmid, H. J. (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 3- 22). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59- 82). London: Academic Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, W. (1985). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wei, M. & Yu, G. (2019). On the Characteristics of Scientific Discourse and Translation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9 (8), 946-950. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0908.08
Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Harlow: Longman.
Wu, Y & Qian, X. (2011). A Study on the Promotion of English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(4), 432-434.
Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written Discourse in Scientific Communities: A Conversation with Two Scientists about their Views of Science, Use of Language, Role of Writing in Doing Science and Compatibility between their Epistemic Views and Language. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2-3), 109-141.