Przejdź do treści

Studia Językoznawcze

Studia Językoznawcze

synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badań polszczyzny

Wcześniej: Studia Językoznawcze : synchroniczne i diachroniczne aspekty badań polszczyzny

t. 20, 2021

Knowledge and identity construction in medical weblogs: A study of epistemic predicates


(Konstruowanie wiedzy i tożsamości w blogach medycznych: studium predykatów epistemicznych)
DOI: 10.18276/sj.2021.20-12
Cytuj

Pełny tekst jest dostępny

ISSN:1730-4180
eISSN:2353-3161
Autorzy: Małgorzata Sokół ORCID
University of Szczecin, Szczecin
Słowa kluczowe: blog medyczny tożsamość wiedza predykaty epistemiczne
Data publikacji całości:2021
Liczba stron:20 (161-180)
OAI-PMH:Metadane
Cited-by (Crossref) ?: Włącz JavaScript, aby pobrać dane cytowań.
CC BY-SA Open Access ERIH PLUS
Kod QR

Abstrakt

Wykorzystując interakcyjne podejście do badania modalności i tożsamości w dyskursie, artykuł analizuje konstruowanie wiedzy i tożsamości na przykładzie użycia czasowników epistemicznych w korpusie polskich blogów medycznych. Analiza wykazuje różnorodność użycia czasowników epistemicznych, a przez to różnorodność ról, jakie lekarze odgrywają na swoich blogach, oraz liczne cele, dla których prowadzą blog. Blogerzy konstruują tożsamość specjalisty-eksperta, który kieruje się swoim etosem zawodowym, a także badacza i doradcy, który zgłębia wiedzę, dzieli się nią i edukuje swoich pacjentów. Lekarze uwiarygodniają swoją wiedzę poprzez odniesienia do własnej praktyki medycznej i doświadczenia, ale dążą również do zminimalizowania dystansu między czytelnikami blogów i nawiązania z nimi rozmowy. W odpowiedzi czytelnicy aktywnie uczestniczą we współtworzeniu wiedzy i wymianie doświadczeń, a także przyczyniają się do budowania społeczności.

PDF

Pobierz PDF
Podgląd PDF

Otwórz PDF

Bibliografia (54)
  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.