[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
Indexing Sources::
For Authors::
Publication ethics::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
Creative Commons License

This Journal under a

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Open Access Policy




Registered in



:: Volume 7, Issue 4 (Oct-Dec 2020) ::
Nutr Food Sci Res 2020, 7(4): 1-6 Back to browse issues page
How Do Scientists Reach Their Target Audience? Academic and Popular Science Articles in Nutrition
Mavadat Saidi , Masoomeh Saiedi
Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University , m.saidi@sru.ac.ir
Abstract:   (2094 Views)
The aim of the current study was to investigate frequencies of interactional metadiscourse markers in English academic research and popular science articles in nutrition. A total of 60 English articles published in three popular databases and four academic journals were analyzed for interactional metadiscourse markers, including hedges, boosters, attitude markers, engagement markers and self-mentions. Results of the analysis revealed nearly twice as many interactional metadiscourse markers in the academic research articles, indicating a higher level of explicit interaction in that genre. Results of the chi-square test (p ≤ 0.01) demonstrated that uses of metadiscourse markers differed significantly in the two genres. Findings showed that the authors of academic research and popular science articles tried to create balances between highlighting the significance and pinpointing the tentativeness of the claims and, thereby, they made interactive choices to approximate their readers’ world. Furthermore, results highlighted the high relevance of popular science articles to academic research articles since authors were inevitably involved in transforming and recovering scientific findings into more comprehensive accounts in popular science texts. Findings can be transferred to pedagogical grounds through raising students’ awareness in English writing courses about the way; through which, the authors of academic research and popular science articles use interactional resources to enhance quality and efficiency of their interactions with the readers.
Keywords: Academic research articles, Interactional metadiscourse, Nutrition, Popular science articles
Full-Text [PDF 410 kb]   (925 Downloads)    
Article type: Review | Subject: Nutrition
Received: 2020/08/1 | Accepted: 2020/09/14 | Published: 2020/10/10
1. Russell N. Communicating Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2010.
2. Ren F, Zhai J. Communication and Popularization of Science and Technology in China. London: Springer 2013. [DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-39561-1]
3. Ben-Ari ET. When scientists write books for the public: The ups and downs, ins and outs, of writing popular science books. BioScience 1999; 49: 819-824. [DOI:10.2307/1313573]
4. Bowler PJ. Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago and London 2009. [DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226068664.001.0001]
5. Hyland K. Metadiscourse. In: Tracy K, Ilie C, Sandel T editors. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2015: 1-15.
6. Fu X, Hyland K. Interaction in two journalistic genres: a study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction 2014; 7: 122-144. [DOI:10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu]
7. Lievrouw LA. Communication and the social representation of scientific knowledge. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 1990; 7: 1-10. [DOI:10.1080/15295039009360159]
8. Giannoni DS. Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes 2008; 27: 212-232. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2006.12.001]
9. Hyland K. Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2010; 9: 116-127. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.003]
10. Nwogu KN. Structure of science popularizations: A genre-analysis approach to the schema of popularized medical texts. English for Specific Purposes 1991; 10: 111-123. [DOI:10.1016/0889-4906(91)90004-G]
11. Miller Th. Visual persuasion: A comparison of visuals in academic texts and the popular press. English for Specific Purposes 1998; 17: 29-46. [DOI:10.1016/S0889-4906(97)00029-X]
12. Bucchi M. Style in science communication. Public Understanding of Science 2013; 22: 904-915. [DOI:10.1177/0963662513498202]
13. Parkinson J, Adendorff R. The use of popular science articles in teaching scientific literacy. English for Specific Purposes 2004; 23: 379-396. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2003.11.005]
14. Estrada FCR, Davis LS. Improving visual communication of science through incorporation of graphic design theories and practices into science communication. Science Communication 2015; 37: 140-148. [DOI:10.1177/1075547014562914]
15. Riesch H. Why did the proton cross the road? Humor and Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science 2015; 24: 768-775. [DOI:10.1177/0963662514546299]
16. Babaii E, Atai MR, Saidi M. Are scientists objective? An investigation of appraisal resource in English popular science articles. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research 2017; 5: 1-19.
17. Harris MAK. The transformational model of language structure. Anthropological Linguistics 1959; 1: 27-29.
18. Vande Kopple WJ. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication 1985; 26: 82-93. [DOI:10.2307/357609]
19. Hyland K. Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics 2017; 113: 16-29. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.007]
20. Vande Kopple WJ. From the dynamic style to the synoptic style in spectroscopic articles in the physical review: Beginnings and 1980. Written Communication 2002; 19: 227-264. [DOI:10.1177/074108830201900201]
21. Hyland K. Disciplinary Discourse: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 2004.
22. Hyland K. Metadiscourse, London: Continuum 2005.
23. Rubio M. A pragmatic approach to the macro-structure and metadiscoursal features of research article introductions in the field of agricultural sciences. English for Specific Purposes 2011; 30: 258-271. [DOI:10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.002]
24. Gillaerts P, Van de Velde. Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2010; 9: 128-139. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004]
25. Kuhi B. Generic variations and metadiscourse use in the writing of applied linguistics: a comparative study and preliminary framework. Written Communication 2011; 28: 97-141. [DOI:10.1177/0741088310387259]
26. Perez FM. Cultural values and their correlation with interactional metadiscourse strategies in Spanish and US business websites. Atlantis 2014; 36: 73-95.
27. Vasquez C. "Don't Even Get Me Started…": Interactive metadiscourse in online consumer reviews. In Darics E editor. Digital Business Discourse. Palgrave: London; 2005: 9-39.
28. Dafouz-Milner E. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: Across-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 2008; 40: 95-113. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003]
29. Yao HQZ. A comparative analysis of the use of metadiscourse in English and Chinese news commentaries. Foreign Language 2008; Accessed on 16 June 2018. Available at: http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-OUTL201201022.htm.
30. Mur-Duenas P. An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 2011; 43: 3068-3079. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002]
31. Fahnestock J. Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written Communication 1998; 15: 330-350. [DOI:10.1177/0741088398015003006]
32. Biber D, Conrad S, Reppen R. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511804489]
33. Nur Aktas R, & Cortes V. Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2008; 7: 3-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.jeap.2008.02.002]
34. White PRR. Telling Media Tales: the news story as rhetoric. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Sydney: University of Sydney 1998.
35. Mur-Duenas P. Attitude markers in business management research articles: a cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2010; 20: 50-72. [DOI:10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00228.x]
36. Abdi R. Interpersonal metadiscourse: an indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 2002; 4: 139-145. [DOI:10.1177/14614456020040020101]
37. Kim Ch. Personal pronouns in English and Korean texts: a corpus-based study in terms of textual interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 2009; 41: 2086-2099. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.004]
38. Proctor K, Su LI. The 1st person plural in political discourse-American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics 2011; 43: 3251-3266. [DOI:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:


XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Saidi M, Saiedi M. How Do Scientists Reach Their Target Audience? Academic and Popular Science Articles in Nutrition. Nutr Food Sci Res 2020; 7 (4) :1-6
URL: http://nfsr.sbmu.ac.ir/article-1-436-en.html

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 7, Issue 4 (Oct-Dec 2020) Back to browse issues page
Nutrition and Food Sciences Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 45 queries by YEKTAWEB 4642