Suchergebnisse

The article considers authors' prefaces in linguistic popular science texts. Authors of popular science texts about the language may have different professional status in relation to the subject of speech (linguistics). Based on this criterion, three types of linguistic popular science texts authors have been identified: 1) linguists who are active in scientific work; 2) linguists-popularizers; 3) authors whose professional activities are related to language practice (translators, editors, writers, etc.). It has been established that the factor of the addresser (professional status of the author) largely determines the stylistic and communicative-pragmatic specificity of the authors' prefaces.

Introduction. The present paper aims at revealing and describing the linguistic means of creating the inventor's image in the English language science popular discourse. The study also describes the use of image creation strategy and solidarity strategy. The relevance of the research is defined, firstly, by unconditional and ever-increasing public interest in scientific knowledge in the era of technological progress. Secondly, regarding the obvious importance of the human factor in the presentation of an invention from the creator's point of view makes it possible for the mass reader to interpret the science news in various ways and see the modern inventor's most typical features. Thus, analyzing the specific representation of the invention in popular science media texts the authors offer their own original conception of a modern innovator, which defines the novelty of the study. Special attention is focused on credibility and competitive nature of science popular discourse which are its integrative features.Methodology and sources. The research is based on the English language sciencepopular media texts – Popular Mechanics, Mit News Education, Science Daily, Interesting Engineering, SciTechDaily. For the selection of technically-focused media texts the continuously sampling method was used. The general methodology of studying image creation strategy and solidarity strategy also includes the method of semantic analysis, the method of semantic-stylistic analysis, elements of communicative-pragmatic analysis and the method of contextual analysis.Results and discussion. Image creation strategy and solidarity strategy are implemented in science popular discourse mainly on lexical and syntactic levels and imply the use of stylistic devices. Each of the strategies mentioned above matches a certain type of science popularized texts about inventions and discoveries. The first type is about the selfpresentation of the innovator, and has its own linguistic features. The second type includes the description of an invention from the position of scientific community. The significant result of the study is the conclusion about the diverse nature of the inventor's media image.Conclusion. The study of the linguistic specific of the inventor's image allows a deeper understanding of the anthropocentric nature of an invention itself. The last one is inseparable from its creator being the result of scientific activity and professional ambitions, as well as the personal growth condition. The chosen methodology can be applied for further research and to similar studies of the creator and his creation based on texts of different profile.

Over the centuries, the circulation of scientific ideas has been granted in one or a limited number of languages. Despite the advantages of avoiding a scientific Babel, popular science is largely communicated to the public using their first language(s), and is often the result of translation from other languages – most notably English. While science may partly be communicated to the public for information, at the leading edge of research it is often popularised for its newsworthiness and/or to involve the public in debates concerning social issues or political decisions. The question addressed in this paper is how the 'news' elements in popular science are mediated in the target language and culture and to what extent processes such as rewriting, transediting and transcreation are at work. Methods and strategies for science communication are compared and contrasted using an Italian and English parallel/comparable corpus of newspaper, magazine and news agency articles reporting on the recent scientific controversy over vaccines. Corpus articles are collected using the LexisNexis database. Data are checked against a small monitor corpus of key articles collected as the controversies developed. Within corpus texts, mediating strategies are tested and issues concerning the achievement of intended effects in scientific controversy popularizations are considered. The discourse of controversies will be investigated in translation as a test case for rewriting, transediting or transcreation with an eye to different audiences, while bearing in mind that the ease of communication and circulation of ideas may have blurred cultural specificities and impacted the presentation of scientific topics to some extent.

Over the centuries, the circulation of scientific ideas has been granted in one or a limited number of languages. Despite the advantages of avoiding a scientific Babel, popular science is largely communicated to the public using their first language(s), and is often the result of translation from other languages – most notably English. While science may partly be communicated to the public for information, at the leading edge of research it is often popularised for its newsworthiness and/or to involve the public in debates concerning social issues or political decisions. The question addressed in this paper is how the 'news' elements in popular science are mediated in the target language and culture and to what extent processes such as rewriting, transediting and transcreation are at work. Methods and strategies for science communication are compared and contrasted using an Italian and English parallel/comparable corpus of newspaper, magazine and news agency articles reporting on the recent scientific controversy over vaccines. Corpus articles are collected using the LexisNexis database. Data are checked against a small monitor corpus of key articles collected as the controversies developed. Within corpus texts, mediating strategies are tested and issues concerning the achievement of intended effects in scientific controversy popularizations are considered. The discourse of controversies will be investigated in translation as a test case for rewriting, transediting or transcreation with an eye to different audiences, while bearing in mind that the ease of communication and circulation of ideas may have blurred cultural specificities and impacted the presentation of scientific topics to some extent.

Despite the efforts of modern scholars to explain the origins of science communication as a social, rhetorical, and aesthetic phenomenon, most researchers approach the popularization of science from the perspective of present issues, thus ignoring its historical roots in classical culture along with its continuities, disruptions, and transformations. This volume fills this research gap with a genealogically reflected introduction into the popularization of science as a recurrent cultural technique. The category »popular science« is elucidated in interdisciplinary and diachronic dialogue, discussing case studies from all historical periods. Classicists, archaeologists, medievalists, art historians, sociologists, and historians of science provide the first diachronic and multi-layered approach to the rhetoric techniques, aesthetics, and societal conditions that have shaped the dissemination and reception of scientific knowledge.