Cover not available
Part of
The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and implications
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García and Angela Downing
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 247] 2014
► pp. 37–56

A method of analysing recontextualisation in the communication of science

 | Loughborough University, UK
Although communication is a creative process, this does not mean that all discourse is entirely novel. On the contrary, speakers and writers often draw upon material encountered within previous discourse-situations, and reuse it in their current discourse-environment. This process, whereby content that has been given expression in one context is subsequently lifted into a different context, is known as recontextualisation. Furthermore, such recontextualisation is frequently accompanied by the recasting or reexpression of the text itself, a process which may be termed resemiotisation. The present chapter proposes a broadly-based, three-tier method for the systematic analysis of recontextualisation and of the accompanying resemiotisation, and applies it to the practical study of communication in science education.
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.03con
References (34)
Corpus
Does, Amy, Norman A. Johnson, and Teresa Thiel. Accessed 2011. “Genetically Modified Organisms.” In Rediscovering Biology . Available at: [URL].
Wikibooks. Accessed 2011. IB Biology/Study Guide: Biotechnology . Available at: [URL].
Wilmut, Ian, Angelica E. Schnieke, Jim McWhir, Alex J. Kind, and Keith H. S. Campbell. 1997. “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells.” Nature 385: 810–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
References
Bucchi, Massimiano. 1996. “When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication. ” Public Understanding of Science 5: 375–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 1975. “Syntactic Analysis of German Chemical Texts: On Constructing a Short Course in German for Chemists. ” Review of Applied Linguistics 23: 320–326.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Interpersonal Meaning in the Noun Phrase.” In The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar , ed. by Daniel García Velasco, and Jan Rijkhoff, 221–261. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Calsamiglia, Helena. 2004. “Science in the Press: Problems and Possibilities of Recontextualisation.” Parallel Session 28 of the 8th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST 8) , Barcelona, Spain, 3–6 June. Available at: [URL].
Cicourel, Aaron V. 1992. “The Interpenetration of Communicative Contexts: Examples from Medical Encounters.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon , ed. by Alessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 293–310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, John H. 2007. “Context in Functional Discourse Grammar. ” Alfa 51 (2): 11–33.Google Scholar
Goodman, Norman. 1992. Introduction to Sociology . New York, NY: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Gregory, Jane, and Steve Miller. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility . Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth. 2003. “Conversational Techniques Used in Transferring Knowledge between Medical Experts and Non–experts. ” Discourse Studies 5: 235–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth, and Thomas Kotschi. 1995. “Discourse Production in Oral Communication: A Study Based on French.” In Aspects of Oral Communication , ed. by Uta M. Quasthoff, 30–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004. “Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English.” In The Language of Science , ed. byM. A. K. Halliday, Jonathan J. Webster, 159–180. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and James R. Martin (eds). 1993a. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Process . London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
. 1993b. “General Orientation.” In Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Process , ed. by Michael A. K. Halliday, and James R. Martin, 2–21. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hilgartner, Stephen. 1990. “The Dominant View of Popularisation: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. ” Social Studies of Science 20: 519–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornig Priest, Susanna. 2009. “Reinterpreting the Audiences for Media Messages about Science.” In Investigating Science Communication in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement and Popular Media , ed. by Richard Holliman, Liz Whitelegg, Eileen Scanlon, Sam Smidt, and Jeff Thomas, 223–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Discourse Across Boundaries: On Recontextualisations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse. ” Text 18: 143–157.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2006. “Genre, Ideology and Intertextuality: A Systemic Functional Perspective.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 2: 275–298.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Robert Veel (eds). 1998. Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1989. “The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. ” Applied Linguistics 10: 1–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Discourse Studies of Scientific Popularisation: Questioning the Boundaries. ” Discourse Studies 5: 265–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, Jean, and Ralph Adendorff. 2004. “The Use of Popular Science Articles in Teaching Scientific Literacy. ” English for Special Purposes 23: 379–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2008. “Layers, Levels and Contexts in Functional Discourse Grammar.” In The Noun Phrase in Functional Discourse Grammar , ed. by Daniel García Velasco, and Jan ­Rijkhoff, 63–115. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roland, Marie–Claude. 2009. “Quality and Integrity in Scientific Writing: Prerequisites for Quality in Science Communication. ” Journal of Science Communication 8 (2): 1–7.Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant. 1998. “Rethinking Recontextualisation in Professional Discourse Studies: An Epilogue. ” Text 18: 310–318.Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron. 2005. “The Discourses of Food in the World System: Toward a Nexus Analysis of a World Problem. ” Journal of Language and Politics 4: 465–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharma, Ajay, and Charles W. Anderson. 2003. “Transforming Scientists’ Science into School Science.” Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, March 23–26, 2003. Available at: [URL].Google Scholar
. 2009. “Recontextualisation of Science from Lab to School: Implications for Science Literacy.” Science and Education 18: 1253–1275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stamper, Ronald K. 1991. “The Semiotic Framework for Information Systems Research.” In Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches and Emergent Traditions , ed. by Hans–Erik Nissen, Heinz K. Klein, and Rudy Hirschheim, 515–527. Amsterdam: North–Holland.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis . Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wollman–Bonilla, Julie E. 2000. “Teaching Science Writing to First Graders: Genre Learning and Recontextualisation. ” Research in the Teaching of English 35: 35–65.Google Scholar