The Construction of Spatial Invasion of Carcinogen Risk in Scientific Discourse: A Corpus- Based Study

Huda H. Khalil, Nassier A. G. Al-Zubaidi

Abstract


Scientific discourse is devoted, in many occasions, to transmitting knowledge about the risk of proximity to carcinogens; e.g. living near nuclear power station may cause cancer because of the emitted radiation which spreads around. No previous study has attempted to investigate the linguistic manifestation of the spatial perspective of carcinogen risk. The present paper aims at investigating the construction of the spatial invasion of carcinogen risk in scientific discourse to promote people to take preventive measures. To achieve this aim, Cap’s (2013) proximization theory of crisis and treat construction is employed. The theory provides three proximization strategies: spatial, temporal and axiological. The spatial proximization strategy, in particular, is adopted in the analysis. The analysis procedure is both qualitative and quantitative. Calculations are performed by corpus linguistics. AntConc software is used for this purpose. The corpus analysis tools used are word list, concordance, file view, cluster/ N- gram, wildcard * and the file view tool. The corpus consists of a set of scientific articles which are combined by the researchers to form the corpus. Results have revealed that scientific discourse employs various linguistic tools to construct the special proximization of carcinogen risk. However, the linguistic tools are employed with different rates to achieve certain cognitive pragmatic aims.  

 


Keywords


carcinogen; prevention; proximization theory; scientific discourse; spatial proximization

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aajami, R. F. (2020). Cognitive Implications of Usage-Based Approach. Journal of the College of Education for Women, 31 (44), 1-13.

Abbas, N. F. (2020). Pragmatics of Overlapping Talk in Therapy Sessions. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 16 (3), 1251-1263. Doi: 10.17263/jlls.803705

Adegbite, W. (2000). “Pragmatics: Some Basic Principles”. In A.O. Babajide (Ed.), Studies in English Language. Ibadan: Enicrownfit Publishers, pp. 60-76.

Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc. Retrieved January 7, 2022, from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/.

_______________ (2019). AntFileCnverter. Retrieved January 7, 2022, from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/.

Biber, D.; Johansson, S.; Leech, G.; Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.

Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. 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.

______ (2006). Legitimization in Political Discourse: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective on the Modern US War Rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

______ (2008). Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 17–41

______ (2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

______ (2014). Applying Cognitive Pragmatics to Critical Discourse Studies: A Proximization Analysis of Three Public Space Discourses. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 16- 30.

______ (2017). The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

______ (2018). Spatial Cognition. In J. Flowerdew and J. Richardson (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 92–105). London: Routledge.

______ (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.

Chilton, P. (2005). Discourse Space Theory: Geometry, Brain and Shifting Viewpoints. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 78–116.

Denholm, R.; Schüz, J.; Straif, K.; Ali, F.M.H.; Bonas, F.; Gjebrea, O.; Sifton C. & Olsson A.C. (2016). Environmental carcinogen exposure and lifestyle factors affecting cancer risk in Qatar: findings from a qualitative review. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 22 (3), 219- 227.

Diniz, L. (2005). Comparative Review: Textstat 2.5, Antconc 3.0, and Compleat Lexical Tutor 4.0. Language Learning & Technology, 9 (3), 22-27.

Dunmire, P. (2011). Projecting the Future through Political Discourse: The Case of the Bush Doctrine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Férez, P. C. (2008). Motion in English and Spanish: A Perspective from Cognitive Linguistics, Typology and Psycholinguistics (Doctoral thesis, Departamento de Filología Inglesa Facultad de Letras Universidad de Murcia). Retrieved November 5, 2021, from

https://www.tdx.cat/bitstream/handle/10803/10816/CifuentesFerez.pdf

Filardo Llamas, L. (2010). Discourse Worlds in Northern Ireland: The Legitimisation of the 1998 Agreement, in K. Hayward and C. O’Donnell (Eds.), Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution Debating Peace in Northern Ireland. London: Routledge, pp. 62 – 76.

Gatto, N. M. (2021). Environmental Carcinogens and Cancer Risk. Cancer, 13, 1- 2. doi.org/10.3390/cancers13040622. Retrieved November 11, 2021, from https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers

Goh, C. F., Chan, M. Y., Ali, A. M. & Rashid, S. M. (2019). The Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Product Information Brochure: How is Generic Structure Used to Persuade Potential Users? GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 19 (4), 219- 242. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-

-12

Gustilo, L, May Pura, C. & Biermeier, T. (2021). Coronalexicon: Meanings and Word-formation Processes of Pandemic-related Lexemes across English Varieties. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature® The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 27(4), 1- 15. http://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2021-

-01

Hanauer, D. I. (2006). Scientific Discourse Multiliteracy in the Classroom. London: Continuum.

Hart, C. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Idris, H. & Ghani, R. A. ( 2012). Construction of Knowledge on Facebook. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature® The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 18(3), 61 – 72.

Jaafar, E. A & Jasim, H. A. (2022). A Corpus- Based Stylistic Analysis of Online Suicide Notes Retrieved from Reddit, Cogent Arts & Humanities, 9(1), 1-16. DOI:10.1080/23311983.2022.2047434

Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse Analysis. Singapore: Blackwell Publishers.

Kaal, B. (2012) Worldviews: Spatial Ground for Political Reasoning in Dutch Election Manifestos. CADAAD, 6 (1), 1 – 22.

Khalil, H. H. & Al- Zubaidi, N. A. G. (2022a). Constructing Carcinogen Risk in Scientific Discourse through Ideological Conflict: A Cognitive Pragmatic Analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(8), 1489-1499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.04

Khalil, H. H. & Al- Zubaidi, N. A. G. (2022b). Constructing Imminent Carcinogenic Attack in English and Arabic Scientific Discourse: A Corpus-Based Contrastive Study. Journal of the College of Education for Women, 33(4), 1- 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36231/coedw.v33i4.1631

Lewis, M. (2001). Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. London: Commercial Colour Press.

Mordovina, T. V. & Nikulshina, N.L. (2010). From Analysis to Teaching Types of Foreign Language Scientific Discourse. Retrieved October 7, 2021 form https://www.tstu.ru/en/science/st/pdf/2010/mordovina.pdf

Myers, G. (2003). Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularization: Questioning the Boundaries. Discourse Studies, 5(2), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445603005002006

Okulska, U. & Cap, P. (Eds.) (2010). Perspectives in Politics and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Overton, J. A. (2013). “Explain” in scientific discourse. Synthese, 190(8), 1383–1405. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41931908

Paltridge, B. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Brisbane: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav, E. Doron, & I. Sichel (Eds.) Lexical Semantics, Syntax, and Event Structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Selvaraj, S. & Sandaran, S.C. (2019). Discourses of Flood Disaster Preparedness by NGOs: Humanitarian Aid, Teamwork and Victimization. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 19 (4), 111- 127. http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2019-1904-06

Skier, J. & Vibulphol, J. (2016). Development and Use of a Corpus Tailored for Legal English Learning. PASAA, 25, 237- 254. Retrieved November 2, 2021, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134680.pdf

Tabbert, U. (2016). Language and Crime: Constructing Offenders and Victims in Newspaper Reports. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol. 2): Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Political discourse and political cognition. In P. A. Chilton, & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as Text and Talk. Analytical Approaches to Political Discourse (pp. 203-237). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.11dij.

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

Younus, L. L. (2020). Audience Demand in Father-Son Argumentation across Generations. Al-Adab Journal, 134, 13- 40.

Yu, G. (2009). Cohesive Coherence in Text and Translation. Language and Translation, 4, 47-51.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2023-2301-11

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021