Popularisation of medical knowledge in online forums
Abstract
The article investigates Russian popular medical science discourse which has barely been studied in terms of popularisation strategies used in expertlay interaction where a set of specialised concepts needs to be displayed in a way that enables a lay audience to understand them. The study was, thus, motivated by the lack of guidance for interacting with non-expert lay Internet users, and challenges faced by them in attempting to understand unfamiliar medical concepts. The findings support the study’s central argument that experts use a different rhetoric to communicate with a lay audience than they use with their peers, and the explanatory strategies help them to overcome the incomprehensibility of expert discourse, indicating that efforts should be undertaken to explain specialised concepts to non-experts.
Downloads
References
Patrizia ANESA, Antoinette FAGE-BUTLER, 2015: Popularizing biomedical information on an online health forum. Ibérica 29, 105–128.
Donella ANTELMI, 2011: Social demand and the new media Italian forums dealing with healthcare. Pragmatics and Society 2/2, 282–300.
Isabel BALTEIRO, 2017: Metaphor in Ebola’s popularized scientific discourse. Iberica 3, 209–230.
Olga BOGINSKAYA, 2020: The simplification of jury instructions: Legal-lay interactions. ESP Today 8/2, 297–318.
Massimiano BUCCHI, 2008: Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science. Handbook of public communication of science and technology. Ed. Massimiano Bucchi. London: Routledge. 57–76.
– –, 1996: When scientists turn to the public: Alternative routes in science communication. Public Understanding of Science 5/2, 375–394.
Helena CALSAMIGLIA, Teun van DIJK, 2004: Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome. Discourse & Society 15/4, 369–389.
Guiomar CIAPUSCIO, 2003: Formulation and reformulation procedures in verbal interactions between experts and semi-laypersons. Discourse Studies 5/2, 207–233.
Antoinette FAGE-BUTLER, 2013: Including patients’ perspectives in patient information leaflets: A polyocular approach. Fachsprache 35, 140–154.
Antoinette FAGE-BUTLER, Matilde Nisbeth JENSEN, 2013: The interpersonal dimension of online patient forums: How patients manage informational and relational aspects in response to posted questions. Hermes 51, 21–38.
Maurizio GOTTI, 2011: Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
– –, 2014: Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse. Iberica 27, 15–34.
Jane GREGORY, Steve MILLER, 1998: Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility. New York: Plenum.
Elizabeth GÜLICH, 2003: Conversational techniques used in transferring knowledge between medical experts and non-experts. Discourse Studies 5/2, 235–263.
Stephen HILGARTNER, 1990: The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science 20, 519–539.
Ken HYLAND, 2007: Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics 28/2, 266–285.
PRAGGLEJAZ GROUP, 2007: MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22/1, 1–39.
Rudiger REINHARDT, Beate STATTKUS, 2002: Fostering knowledge communication: concept and implementation. Journal of Universal Computer Science 8/5, 536–545.
Srikant SARANGI, 1998: Rethinking recontextualization in Professional discourse studies: An epilogue. Text 18/2, 301–318.
Elena SEMINO, 2008: Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Susak SONTAG, 1989: Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors. London, New York: Penguin Modern Classics.
Copyright (c) 2022 University of Maribor Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyrights
Authors of accepted manuscripts will retain copyright in their work, but will assign to Slavia Centralis the permanent right to electronically distribute their article. Authors may republish their work (in print and/or electronic format) as long as they acknowledge Slavia Centralis as the original publisher. Authors may also share the published version on their own websites, departmental webpages, or institutional repositories.
Plagiarism Policy
Slavia Centralis is a non-commercial, open access, electronic research journal. As such it pledges to uphold certain ethical principles regarding confidentiality, originality and intellectual fair play. Slavia Centralis takes copyright infringement and plagiarism very seriously and all submissions may be checked with duplication detection software.
Authors must:
- Ensure that all work submitted is original, fully referenced and that all authors are represented accurately. The submission must be exclusive and not under consideration elsewhere.
- Obtain all permissions from copyright owners for 3rd party material (e.g. quotations, illustrations, tables, etc.).