1. Approaching the Language of Science
Scientists use language. It could be said in order to define this statement
further, that the language they use serves a wide variety of ends: they use it to
communicate among themselves, to scribble notes, to rearrange the findings of
their research into articles and to write textbooks for those students who will be
tomorrow‘s scientists. This should be kept in mind and should lead to realise that
there are nearly endless sub-varieties which differ in audiences and participants,
purposes and degrees of complexity (Darian 2003:ix). Each one of these activities
is nevertheless social in nature, since science – as all other human activities – is
inherently social (Reeves 2005:1). Scientific productivity relies on collaboration
among scientists and collaboration would hardly be achievable without oral and
written language. It can now be safely argued that language is as central to science
as it is to other realms, such as poetry and courtship, politics and business. But
grasping the key role played by language in the making of science represents a
starting point, not a conclusion. The four items listed above were not randomly
chosen: poetry, courtship, politics and business are well known for the biased and
arbitrary language they use: could the same thing be said about the language of
science? Unfortunately, this question is not a yes-no one: the language of science
– being language – is doomed to show some degree of imperfection, there being
no perfect way to communicate what goes on under the microscope, in a diseased
body or in a galaxy far away (Reeves 2005:2). This is not a paralysing limit,
though: scientists are interested in finding out what can be generally said to be
true under most conditions and therefore their language deals with capturing what
is most generally observable and predictable (Reeves 2005:5).
One way of approaching the language of science is to contrast it with the
language of poetry, since such a comparison would bring out the key features of
3
each variety. Both scientists and poets want to find the most precise and effective
way to convey experience and both categories admire elegance (Reeves 2005:7).
This last statement may sound strange, but a theory can be as elegant as a sonnet:
it all depends on the point of view one chooses. Even though their aims are
similar, poets and scientists are known to produce texts which are strikingly
different because of the different cultural traditions of professions which
developed as two distinct communities (Reeves 2005:7): poets wants to establish
what is subjective and ambiguous about experience, whereas scientists want their
reader to be able to repeat the methods or apply the data to new situations (Reeves
2005: 7). The dichotomy between science and poetry is usually associated with
varying degrees of emotional expression, which would be higher in poetic texts,
whereas it would be non-existent in scientific ones. This assumption goes hand in
hand with another one, namely that the language of science reports facts. The
interpretation of data or the development of new ideas is not taken into account,
thus making the parts which make up the scientific enterprise cohere and reducing
the language of science to a simple, descriptive system which is ancillary to
practical experience (Reeves 2005:10). In another laymen‘s theory about the
language of science people see it as a mere nomenclature, paying little or no
attention to any phenomenon above the morphological level: here ―nomenclature‖
could be replaced by ―jargon‖, a term which implies that the language of science
could be avoided and that scientific concepts and theories could be expressed in
―plain English‖, ―simple words‖ and the like (Halliday 1993:70). Unfortunately,
science is concerned with the formation of ―an uncommonsense view of the
world‖ (Martin 1993:225) and it would be impossible to represent scientific
knowledge entirely in commonsense wording (Halliday 1993:70).
4
1.1 Theoretical Frameworks
So far I have written about the language of science, but this is not the whole
picture. Talking about the ―language of science‖ carries the implication that ―the
concepts and procedures of scientific inquiry constitute a secondary cultural
system [...] independent of primary cultural systems associated with different
societies‖ (Widdowson 1979:51). In Widdowson‘s terminology, we would not be
dealing with scientific discourse (―a universal mode of communicating, or
universal rhetoric‖) but with its different textualizations. This view can be
paralleled by many others, which study the relationships between what can be
defined as a potential and what can be seen as the actual realization. Widdowson
concedes that this view is somewhat simplistic, since we encouter a great deal of
internal variation (Widdowson 1979:52). He seems to stick with the dichotomy
between textbooks and research material, but with an important addendum, that is
the concept of continuum from primary to secondary culture. To be more precise,
―scientific instruction [...] introduces both the concepts and procedures of
scientific inquiry and [...], as a necessary concomitant, the rhetorical principles of
scientific discourse‖ (Widdowson 1979:52). The process bears striking
similarities with science as an uncommonsense view of the world, as in Martin‘s
1993 definition (Martin 1993:225). Widdowson looks at the bigger semiotic
picture, by stating that scientific discourse is not realized by language only, as a
simple example such as S + O → SO shows (Widdowson 1979:53). This is very
22
true indeed, even though new mixed system will bear traces of their origin in
English-speaking countries. The language of science would be seen as a side
effect of the transmission of scientific knowledge through scientific discourse, the
latter being universal, whereas the former should be seen as independent from
primary cultural systems (Widdowson 1979:54). This view could be constrasted
5
with a constructionist one, where science is seen as a discursive practice: each
1
instantation would then play a role in perpetuating a definite ideology.
Widdowson wrote Explorations in Applied Linguistics in 1979 and his treatment
of the notion of registers seem to suffer from this temporal lag; by claiming that
register theory can just describe instances of scientific discourse as types of texts
(Widdoson 1979:55), he misses an important point: once the features of a register
have been recognized, we are left with the most interesting part, that is asking why
those features are there and, even more important, what they are for. Working
within a definite theoretical framework which enables us to answer such questions
would be a major improvement in our understanding of language and in our
language teaching-related activities. Luckily, such a framework exists and its pros
will be explained later in this chapter. For the time being, however, I will offer
just a little teaser, since it may be useful to contrast the views held in this work
with completely different ones: language has been studied as an independent
phenomenon detached from reality. For a long time till Chomsky attempted to
uncover comprehensive, universal systems of basic patterns and rules underlying
what can be labelled as ―surface structures‖, a project which had a second goal,
that is the demonstration of the correlations between language and mind, thus
accounting for how language was comprehended and produced and acquired
(Douthwaite 2002:267). Such an approach was lacking in the explanation of
actual language use, a feature of language which generative linguists too hastily
crossed out from their agenda. Halliday‘s grammar, on the other hand, is an
attempt to produce a total grammar (Douthwaite 2002:275), and we can benefit
from four advantages accruing from Hallidayan concepts: first, this is a semantics-
1
Instantations have perpetuated ideologies so far and the minor modifications which have taken
place have just revealed underlying similarities. Of course, instantations could radically alter or
disrupt ideological practices and formations.
6
driven grammar; secondly, the purpose is to capture some crucial essence of the
phenomena referred to and not simple description; thirdly, analyses are more
refined as a result of the absolute lack of terminological parsimony; finally, since
Hallidayan terminology captures the sense relations of the clause constituents,
changes in the grammar do not affect the semantic value (Douthwaite 2002:277).
The Chomskian straw man was not a random choice, since Widdowson concludes
chapter 4 of his Explorations by comparing scientific discourse to universal deep
structures, texts to surface variants and textualization to transformational
processes (Widdowson 1979:62), thus giving us the chance to apply the same
criticism applied to Chomskian linguistics. The language of science is taught,
learnt and used in several different contexts. Of course, any description of
language in terms of a homogenous common system is a misrepresentation
(Widdowson 1979:10), but it is not hazardous to claim that communication is
central and that every use of language both has to deal with the surrounding
reality and to take into account the network of existing social relationships. As for
teaching and learning, it could be more appropriate to further refine the definition
of the language of science – in this case the English one – as an ESP. This
acronym underwent a significant semantic shift, since it formerly stood for
English for Special Purposes, whereas nowadays it refers to English for Specific
Purposes (Robinson 1980:5). This shift has been explained in terms of a
difference in focus: ―special purposes‖ seems to suggest special languages (i.e.
restricted languages), ―specific purposes‖ ―focuses [...] on the purposes of the
learner and refers to the whole range of language resources‖ (Robinson 1980: 5).
The ―purposes‖ behind the use of the English language are utilitarian (Robinson
1980:6), that is successful performances in work and the English language would
play a subsidiary role (Robinson 1980:6). The introduction of work into the
7
equation refines another factor: the age of learners. A quite widespread agreement
has been reached on this feature of ESPs and it is assumed that learners are adults
or near adults (Robinson 1980:7). The phenomenon of languages for special
purposes seems to be so omnicomprensive that diachronic approaches are
possible: for instance, 1576 has been proposed as the date of the first phrase book
for foreign tourists (Robinson 1980:15), whereas a more reasonable position
argues that the German language competence required in the period from the late
19th century to the outbreak of WWII can be regarded as an instance of a LSP
(Robinson 1980:15). ESL has also been described as a variety of English which,
according to Tony Dudley-Evans, is characterized by two sets of ―absolute‖ and
―variable‖ characteristics:
Absolute Characteristics
1. English for Specific Purposes (abbreviated to ESP) is defined
to meet specific needs of the learners;
2. ESP makes use of the underlying methodology and activities
of the discipline it serves;
3. ESP is centered on the language appropriated to these
activities in terms of grammar, lexis, register, study skills,
discourse and genre;
A Selection of Variable Characteristics
1. ESP may be related to or designed for specific disciplines;
2. ESP is likely to be designed for adult learners.
(Dudley-Evans 1997 in Laurence 1998)
8
The beginnings of LSPs were marked by the need for the quick
development of writing and reading skills in foreign students at English-speaking
universities (Cortese and Molly 2008: 181), a result of expansion in scientific,
technical and economic activities prompted by the end of WWII (Hutchinson and
Waters 1992:6). As time went by LSPs gained importance – both as a research
subject and as a teaching subject – because of the increasing demand for these
linguistic skills on the employment market (Gotti 1992: vii in Cortese and Molly
2008:181) as a result of the increasing globalization of English (Leech and
Svartvik 2006:227). The English language underwent a process of
commodification, thus becoming a product to be promoted and marketed (Leech
and Svartvik 2006:231), since all languages are equal and should be seen as social
practices which cannot be abstracted from economic, political and cultural
contexts without which they could not exist (Mazzaferro 2002:131). The
commodification of English can be seen as part of a more general trend, which
―tends to reshape the boundaries between what refers to the market and what does
not[,] to the advantage of the first one‖ (Laïdi 2000:22-23 in Mazzaferro
2002:133, translated by Gerardo Mazzaferro). In such a context languages become
productive and functional to the market, allowing access to material processes and
resources (Mazzaferro 2002:134). The necessity for English language competence
was not created anew, but it was to be applied to the two spheres of technology
and commerce. (Hutchinson and Waters 1992:6). Interestingly, USA, UK and
Australia are no longer the only ―producers‖ of this commodity, since countries of
2
the Outer Circle have recently begun to act as producers on the world market,
2
In Braj Kachru‘s model on the spread of English ―Inner Circle‖ refers to countries where most of
the inhabitants speak English as a first language (UK, USA, Australia), ―Outer Circle‖ refers to
countries where English is a second – often official or semi-official – language (India, Kenya), but
where most users are not native speakers and ―Expanding Circle‖ refers to countries where English
is learned and used as a foreign language (Italy, Spain, Russia) (Leech and Svartvik 2006:2).
9
thus multiplying the number of ―Englishes for Specific Purposes‖ available, a
development which could be seen as a strain on the teaching language profession
which is similar to the one brought about by the post-war spread of English
(Hutchinson and Waters 1992:7). Moreover, the Inner Circle is not immune from
power struggles, since UK, USA and Australia – albeit to a lesser degree – are
competing to sell a particular model of English, a purpose which has both material
and abstract advantages (Kachru 2002:50). This demand should not be seen as a
constraining force on the development of ESP study, since research and teaching
have emancipated themselves from any reduction to a pedagogic practice
instrumental to market needs (Cortese and Molly 2008:182) – still a consistent
part of the ESL community‘s agenda – focusing in addition on the contexts in
which learning processes take place and on the functions served by ESPs in
society at large.
However, it should be stressed that ESP is not a monolithic phenomenon
(Hutchinson and Waters 1992:9). Hutchinson and Waters offer a short
historiography of the linguistic approaches to ESP on the basis of their different
focuses of attention. In register analysis, for instance, the aim was the
identification of the grammatical and lexical features of the registers associated
with various fields (Hutchinson and Waters 1992:10), working under the
assumption that variation in language must be associated with the existence of
varieties. Even though this approach might be labelled as an exercise in futility,
we ought to keep in mind that the purpose of such studies was a pedagogic one,
namely the making of ESP courses which would provide information on the
language forms students would meet in their studies (Hutchinson and Waters
1992:10). The approach of register analysis was flawed and this may be linked to
the reluctance to venture above sentence level. Even though this approach could
10
bring some good quantitative results, it could not help students who experienced
difficulties in the use of English. A different approach was proposed which
focused on ―how sentences were combined in discourse to produce meaning‖
(Hutchinson and Waters 1992:11). A tacit assumption by register analysts and
discourse analysts is that concerning rhetorical patterns of text organization which
differed significantly between areas of use (Hutchinson and Waters 1992:12).
This point was examined clearly and, quite paradoxically, the results in subject-
specific academic texts were used to make observations about discourse in general
(Hutchinson and Waters 1992:12). The third phase of ESP studies was
characterized by setting the existing knowledge about ESPs on a more scientific
basis though the establishment of language analysis related more closely to the
learners‘ reasons for learning (Hutchinson and Waters 1992:12). In other terms,
the target situations were analyzed by looking for salient linguistic features which
should be incorporated in the syllabus of the ESP course (Hutchinson and Waters
1992:12). The problem was related to the quite simplistic nature of needs used in
the analyses of the target situations (Hutchinson and Waters 1992:12). Another
approach dealt with the underlying reasoning and interpreting processes which
help us extract meaning from discourse. Therefore, the focus should be on these
underlying interpretative strategies in order to enable the language user to cope
with the surface forms (Hutchinson and Waters 1992:13-14).
Research has in particular focused on written language and on the
sociocultural settings interacting with texts: this is a relevant feature, since writing
creates the potential of structuring, categorizing and disciplinizing (Halliday 1993:
118), which are key elements in the creation and transmission of scientific
knowledge. Moreover, historical and technological factors in the development of
English as a world language have foregrounded the importance of acceptable
11
writing skills in speakers of English as a Foreign Language, whereas speaking
skills have been playing a secondary role. From a quantitative point of view, the
work which has been done on genre strongly supports this argument. Genres
should not be seen as purely textual phenomena, since their main function is a
sociorhetorical one (Scarpa 2001:12). Neither ESP nor genre analysis are
monolithic fields, though: there are many sub-categories which focus either on
specific subjects (for instance, legal texts rather than economic ones) or on
particular sub-genres (for instance, research articles rather than textbooks). In his
1990‘s Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings John M.
3
Swales contrasts his notion of genre with those found in other disciplines (such
as folklore studies, literary studies and rhetoric) and within linguistics itself
(Swales 1990:33-45). The most interesting comparison is that between his notion
4
of genre and the one put forward by Michael Halliday and the so-called
Hallidayan linguists. Since this work relies on systemic-functional linguistics
(SFL), I find it useful to provide further information, first on systemic-functional
linguistics and then on genre as they are dealt with within its framework. Systemic
functional linguistics views language in terms of its functioning in our human
lives (Taverniers 2004:6), hence the functional. Language succeeds in helping our
lives as human beings by virtue of what Halliday refers to as the three
metafunctions: the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual metafunction
(Taverniers 2004:6). The ideational metafunction deals with language as
representation, that is with the subdivision of reality into processes, participants
3
Incidentally the scholar most frequently referred to on the journal English for Specific Purposes
(Hewings 2002).
4
Here is Swales‘ definition: ―A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of
which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert
members of the parent discourse community, and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre.
This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice
of content and style‖ (Swales 1990:58).
12
and circumstances; the interpersonal metafunction deals with language as
interaction: it focuses on how language enacts interpersonal relations and how
intersubjective positions are created using linguistic interaction; lastly, the textual
metafunction deals with language as message, for instance in the positioning of
given and new information in texts (Taverniers 2004:6-8).
Back to genre, it is useful to stress the fact that genre is a term which can be
found in many disciplines, as Swales points out, but in systemic-functional
linguistics genres are seen as ―staged, goal oriented, purposeful activit[ies] in
which speakers engage as members of our culture‖ (Martin 1984:25 in Eggins
2004:55). Less technically, genres are ―how things get done‖ when language plays
a role in their realization (Martin 1985:248 in Eggins 2004:55). These definitions
of genre allow us to see that one can find as many genres as there are social
activity types (Eggins 2004:56). The relationships of texts to types (i.e. generic
identity) lie in three dimensions, namely: the co-occurrence of a particular
contextual cluster or register configuration; the text‘s schematic structure; the
realizational pattern in the text (Eggins 2004:56). The first dimension can be
explained by referring to social constructionism, in the sense that all human
activities are subject to habitualization, that is frequently repeated actions are
―cast into [...] pattern[s]‖ which are ―apprehended by the performer as that
pattern‖ (Berger and Luckmann 1966:70-71 in Eggins 2004:56-57). Bachtin‘s
views on speech genres can be seen as a counterpart in social realms to Berger and
Luckmann‘s patterns with a further suggestion, namely that recognition of a
speech hints at the speech whole (Eggins 2004:57), clueing the speaker in on the
appropriate moves. The development of habits, that is patterns, that is genres lies
in the ultimate benefit associated with habitualization: being decisions narrowed,
the individual is freed ―from the burden of ‗all those decisions‘‖ and this provides
13
a psychological benefit (Berger and Luckmann 1966:71 in Eggins 2004:57).
Schematic structure refers to the compositional structure of genres, that is genres
develop linguistic expressions using a limited number of functional stages (Eggins
2004:58). A simple reason for the emergence of schematic structures is to be
found in our inherent limits as meaning makers: since we cannot make all the
meanings we want at once, then each stage in genre contributes to the overall
meaning the genre itself must make in order to succeed (Eggins 2004:59). In SFL
genre analysis schematic structure is linked to the two key concepts of
5
constituency and labelling. To summarize, genres are made up of other parts,
which can be labelled according to their function. This leads to the next step in
genre analysis, that is the distinction between obligatory (or defining) and
optional elements. If we analyzed a highly-valued written text, such as a research
article, we would undoubtedly find an abstract, an introductory stage, a
methodological stage, a result stage, a discussion stage and a bibliographical
stage. Removal of a part, say the abstract, would affect the overall text, but
perhaps the exchange of knowledge would still be possible: the reader would have
to read the introduction and the first part of the result stage to see whether the
article is worth reading. If the result stage were removed, the reader would be able
to know what the article is about, but he/she should take the scientific value of the
article on trust. This can be done for each element and can cast some light on their
function within the overall instance of genre and, by extension, within the whole
genre. The difference between obligatory and optional elements has been referred
5
Constituency may be reworded as ―things are made up of, or built out of, other things‖ (Eggins
2004: 60). As for genre, the elements informally referred to as steps are technically defined as
constituent stages (Eggins 2004: 60). (Functional) labelling, that is establishing that two parts of
a text constitute separate stages, can be done following formal or functional criteria (Eggins
2004: 60). The former emphasize sameness by dividing the text on the basis of the form of
different constituents, the latter emphasize difference, dealing with the different functions of each
stage (Eggins 2004: 60).
14
Ricevi informazioni sui nostri servizi, sulle offerte e non perdere news e consigli su università e lavoro.
