Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 3:2 (2014) ► pp.126–152

Negotiating scientific ethos in academic controversy

| Bar Ilan University
The aim of this paper is to provide a rhetorical-linguistic analysis of academic ‘conflict articles’ that are part of an actual academic controversy in the field of archaeology, focusing on the concept of scientific ethos. In contexts of conflict, the act of establishing one’s ethos and attacking the rival’s ethos can become a central issue. Scientific ethos is a discursive construction reciprocally established and negotiated through various linguistic practices. First-person pronouns, citations, rhetorical questions, irony, positive and negative evaluations are all resources available to the authors, as well as labeling, quotation marks and punctuation. Scientific norms of disinterestedness and skepticism, as well as the values of consistency, simplicity and fruitfulness are realized in this argumentative context. Due to the ideological, political and religious implications of the subject, emotional neutrality as a scientific value was found to be especially significant.
Keywords: academic argumentation, conflict articles, scientific ethos
Published online: 22 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.3.2.02liv
References (40)
Amossy, Ruth. 2001. “Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology.” Poetics Today 22 (1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartholomae, David. 1986. “Inventing the University.” Journal of Basic Writing 51: 4–23.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.Google Scholar
Beller, Mara. 1999. Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berge, Kjell Lars. 2003. “The Scientific Text Genres as Social Actions: Text Theoretical Reflections on the Relations between Context and Text in Scientific Writing.” In Academic Discourse: Multidisciplinary Approaches, ed. by Kjersti FlØttum, and François Rastier, 141–157. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Bitzer, Lloyd. 1968. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 11: 1–14.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Trans. by G. Raymond, and M. Adamson. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cherry, Roger D. 1982. “Ethos vs. persona: Self representation in written discourse.” Written Communication 51: 251–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Burton R. 1962. Faculty Culture. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 1992. “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective.” Social Studies of Science 22 (4): 597–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Brown, and Rom Harré. 1990. “Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 20 (1): 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le Dire et le Dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
FlØttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl, and Torodd Kinn. 2006. Academic Voices. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2005. “Conflict and Consensus: Construing Opposition in Applied Linguistics.” In Strategies in Academic Discourse, ed. by Elena Tognini Bonelli, and Gabriella Del Lungo Camiciotti, 1–15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-mention in Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes 201: 207–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1091–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2009. “Strategies of Refutation by Definition: A Pragma-Dialectic Approach to Refutations in a Public Speech.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Bart Garssen, 35–51. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keith, William, and William Rehg. 2008. “Argumentation in Science: The Cross-Fertilization of Argumentation Theory and Science Studies.” In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. by Judy Wajcman, Michael Lynch, Olga Amsterdamska, and Edward J. Hackett, 211–239. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina. Karin D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: Toward a Constructivist and Contextual Theory of Science. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kohler, Robert E. 1982. From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, Dominique. 1999. “Ethos, scénographie, incorporation.” In Images de soi dans le discours. La construction de l’ethos, ed. by Ruth Amossy, 75–100. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. “The Normative Structure of Science.” In The Sociology of Science, ed. by Norman W. Storer, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1989. “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles.” Applied Linguistics 10 (1): 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pera, Marcello. 1994. The Discourses of Science. Trans. by C. Botsford. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans by J. Wilkinson, and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Prelli, Laurence J. 1989. “The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos.” In Rhetoric in the Human Science, ed. by Herbert W. Simons, 48–68. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 1984. “Pomp and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology.” Social Studies in Science 141: 481–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storer, Norman W. 1966. The Social System of Science. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Weizman, Elda. 2008. Positioning in Media Dialogue: Negotiating Roles in the News Interview. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazar, Amihai. 1997. “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein.” Levant 291: 157–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazar, Eilat. 2006. “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review 32: 17-27, 70.Google Scholar
Na’aman, Nadav. 1996. “The Contribution of the Amarna Letters to the Debate on Jerusalem’s Political Position in the Tenth Century B.C.E.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 3041: 17–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, Israel. 1996. “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View.” Levant 281: 177–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder.” Levant 301: 167–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, Israel, Ze’ev Herzog, Lily Singer-Avitz, and David Ussishkin. 2007. “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem been Found?” Tel-Aviv 341: 142–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wang, Jiawei & Zhiying Xin
2023. A novel multi-dimensional analysis of reply, response and rejoinder articles: When discipline meets time. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 65 ► pp. 101286 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.