Negotiating scientific ethos in academic controversy
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.
2001 “Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology.” Poetics Today
22 (1): 1–23.
“Inventing the University
.” Journal of Basic Writing
1988 Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science
. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
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.
1999 Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution
. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
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.
1968 “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric
1991 Language and Symbolic Power
. Trans. by G. Raymond
, and M. Adamson
. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cherry, Roger D.
“Ethos vs. persona: Self representation in written discourse
.” Written Communication
Clark, Burton R.
1962 Faculty Culture
. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California.
1992 “Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective.” Social Studies of Science
22 (4): 597–618.
Davies, Brown, and Rom Harré
1990 “Positioning: The Discursive Production of Selves.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour
20 (1): 43–63.
1984 Le Dire et le Dit
. Paris: Minuit.
FlØttum, Kjersti, Trine Dahl, and Torodd Kinn
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.
2001 “Humble Servants of the Discipline? Self-mention in Research Articles.” English for Specific Purposes
2002 “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing.” Journal of Pragmatics
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.
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.
Knorr-Cetina. Karin D.
1981 The Manufacture of Knowledge: Toward a Constructivist and Contextual Theory of Science
. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kohler, Robert E.
1982 From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar
1979 Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts
. Beverly Hills: Sage.
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.
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.
1989 “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles.” Applied Linguistics
10 (1): 1–35.
1994 The Discourses of Science
. Trans. by C. Botsford
. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
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.
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.
1984 “Pomp and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology.” Social Studies in Science
Storer, Norman W.
1966 The Social System of Science
. New York: Holt.
1997 “Iron Age Chronology: A Reply to I. Finkelstein.” Levant
2006 “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” Biblical Archaeology Review
32: 17-27, 70.
“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
1996 “The Archaeology of the United Monarchy: An Alternative View.” Levant
1998 “Bible Archaeology or Archaeology of Palestine in the Iron Age? A Rejoinder.” Levant
Finkelstein, Israel, Ze’ev Herzog, Lily Singer-Avitz, and David Ussishkin
2007 “Has King David’s Palace in Jerusalem been Found?” Tel-Aviv
Cited by 1 other publications
Wang, Jiawei & Zhiying Xin
. A novel multi-dimensional analysis of reply, response and rejoinder articles: When discipline meets time
. Journal of English for Academic Purposes
pp. 101286 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 november 2023. 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.