Cover not available
Part of
Emotion in Discourse
Edited by J. Lachlan Mackenzie and Laura Alba-Juez
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 302] 2019
► pp. 357–386

Chapter 14
Promoemotional science?

Emotion and intersemiosis in graphical abstracts

 | Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Spain)
In this chapter I explore how the visual mode favors the expression of emotion in graphical abstracts, an academic genre increasingly demanded by high-impact scientific journals. My starting point is the set of expectations aroused by written scholarly discourse with regard to attitudinal projection, as well as recent research on emotion in computer-mediated communication in general. Next, I examine the major challenges posed by graphical abstracts and analyze the emotional language of some actual samples from researchers publishing in high-impact journals. My findings identify a hybridization of the genre and suggest that the presence of emotion may relate to the adoption of roles other than those of scientist, such as journalist, advertiser, and entertainer.
Keywords: graphical abstract, emotion, academic scientific discourse, hybridization, visual literacy
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Towards an emotional turn in the professions?
  • 2.Point of departure: Communicative expectations in academic communities of practice
    • 2.1Register expectations in written scholarly discourse
    • 2.2Medium and mode expectations: The visuals of science
    • 2.3Genre expectations: The role of abstracts in academia
  • 3.Transduction-generated challenges: Emotion as distracter and intersemiosis enhancement
    • 3.1Analytical procedure
    • 3.2Examples, analysis and findings
  • 4.A closing thought: The birth of a promoemotional science?
  • Notes
  • References
  • Sources of samples
Published online: 27 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.302.14san
References (102)
References
Aronowitz, Stanley. 1988. Science as Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society. London: Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2016. Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barry, Ann Marie S. 1997. Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image and Manipulation in Visual Communication. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, John A. 2011. “The Decomposability of Semiotic Modes.” In Multimodal Studies: Multiple Approaches and Domains, ed. by Kay L. O’Halloran & Bradley A. Smith, 17‒38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bateman, John. 2014. “Genre in the Age of Multimodality: Some Conceptual Refinements for Practical Analysis.” In Evolution in Genre: Emergence, Variation, Multimodality, ed. by Paola Evangelisti Allori, John Bateman & Vijay K. Bhatia, 237‒269.Google Scholar
Bateman, John, Janina Wildfeuer & Tuomo Hiippala. 2017. Multimodality: Foundations, Research and Analysis – A Problem-Oriented Introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1993. “Foreword.” In Professional Communication: The Social Perspective, ed. by Nancy R. Blyler & Charlotte Thralls, vii–viii. London: Sage.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Systems of Genres and the Enactment of Social Intentions.” In Genre and the New Rhetoric, ed. by Aviva Freedman & Peter Medway, 79‒101. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2008. Emotion Talk across Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol & Thomas N. Huckin. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/ Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2002. “Applied Genre Analysis: A Multi-Perspective Model.” Ibérica 4: 3‒19.Google Scholar
2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Bethany Gray. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cambrosio, Alberto, Daniel Jacobi & Peter Keating. 2006. “Arguing with Images: Pauling’s Theory of Antibody Formation.” In Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication, ed. by Luc Pauwels, 153‒194. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
Crane, Diana. 1969. “Social Structure in a Group of Scientists: A Test of the ‘Invisible College’ Hypothesis.” American Sociological Review 34 (3): 335‒352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dondis, Donis A. 1973. A Primer of Visual Literacy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dzung Pho, Phuong. 2013. Authorial Stance in Research Articles: Examples from Applied Linguistics and Educational Technology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Economou, Maria, Hilary Young, Laia Pujol Post & Sara Perry. 2017. “Designing and Evaluating Emotionally Engaging Digital Stories in Cultural Heritage Settings.” In Researching Digital Cultural Heritage. International Conference, Manchester Museum, 30 November to 1 December 2017. [URL], accessed January 19, 2018.
Engberg, Jan & Carmen Daniela Maier. 2015. “Exploring the Hypermodal Communication of Academic Knowledge beyond Generic Structure.” In Discourse in and through the Media, ed. by Marina Bondi, Silvia Cacchiani & Davide Mazzi, 46‒63. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
English, Fiona. 2011. Student Writing and Genre: Reconfiguring Academic Knowledge. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Eve Museología + Museografía. 2014. “Patrimonio y Emociones.” Accessed December 1, 2017. [URL]
Fish, Stanley. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fjӕstad, Björn. 2007. “Why Journalists Report Science as They Do.” In Journalism, Science and Society, ed. by Martin W. Bauer & Massimiano Bucchi, 123‒131. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forceville, Charles J. 2009. “Non-Verbal and Multimodal Metaphor in a Cognitivist Framework: Agendas for Research.” In Multimodal Metaphor, ed. by Charles J. Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, 19‒42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2017. “A Relevance Theory Approach to Multimodality.” Lecture given at the Department of English Linguistics of the Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain, December 13, 2017.Google Scholar
Gómez Cabranes, Leonor. 2013. “Las Emociones del Internauta.” In Emociones y Estilos de Vida: Radiografía de Nuestro Tiempo, ed. by Lourdes Flamarique & Madalena D’Oliveira Martins, 211‒243. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2008. Investigating Specialized Discourse. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Green, Andrew. 2007. “Are Viewers ‘Engaged’ with Advertising? Does It Matter?” WARC Media FAQs, March 2007. [URL] Last accessed June 2015.
Gregory, Jane & Steve Miller. 1998. Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan & Paula Chesley. 2012. “Hedging, Stance and Voice in Medical Research Articles.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland & Carmen Sancho Guinda, 85‒100. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & James R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Robert. 2007. “How Do We Predict Advertising Attention and Engagement?” University of Bath School of Management Working Paper Series. Paper 09.Google Scholar
Hiippala, Tuomo. 2014. “Multimodal Genre Analysis.” In Interactions, Images and Texts, ed. by Sigrid Norris & Carmen Daniela Maier, 111‒123. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hoare, Jess. 2017. “Hang onto Your Emotions: Emotional Geographies of the Museum.” In Researching Digital Cultural Heritage. International Conference, Manchester Museum, 30 November to 1 December 2017. [URL], accessed January 19, 2018.
Hoffmann, Christian R. 2010. “Introduction: Narrative Revisited. Telling a Story in the Age of New Media.” In Narrative Revisited: Telling a Story in the Age of New Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann, 1‒18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huckin, Thomas N. 2001. “Abstracting from Abstracts.” In Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, ed. by Martin Hewings, 93‒103. Birmingham: The University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
. 2005a. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2005b. “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 7: 173‒192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. English for Academic Purposes: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2008. “Different Strokes for Different Folks: Disciplinary Variation in Academic Writing.” In Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, ed. by Kjersti Fløttum, 89‒108. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
. 2009. Academic Discourse: English in a Global Context. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in Popular and Professional Science.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 116‒127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. “Projecting an Academic Identity in Some Reflective Genres.” Ibérica 21 (Spring 2011): 9‒30.Google Scholar
. 2011b. “Disciplines and Discourses: Social Interactions in the Construction of Knowledge.” In Writing in the Knowledge Society, ed. by Doreen Starke-Meyerring, Anthony Paré, Natasha Artemeva, Miriam Horne & Larissa Yousoubova, 193‒214. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. “Undergraduate Understandings: Stance and Voice in Final Year Reports.” In Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres, ed. by Ken Hyland & Carmen Sancho Guinda, 134‒150. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Dialogue, Community and Persuasion in Research Writing.” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by Luz Gil-Salom & Carmen Soler-Monreal, 1‒20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken & Feng (Kevin) Jiang. 2016. “‘We Must Conclude that’…: A Diachronic Study of Academic Engagement.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 24: 29‒42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Is Academic Writing Becoming More Informal?” English for Specific Purposes 45: 40‒51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Interactions Design Foundation website. 2002. “Emotional Design.” Accessed December 1, 2017. [URL]
Jaffe, Alexandra. 2009. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jewitt, Carey. 2009. “An Introduction to Multimodality.” In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, ed. by Carey Jewitt, 14‒27. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, Hak-Soo. 2012. “Engagement: The Key to the Communicative Effectiveness of Science and Ideas.” In Science Communication in the World: Practices, Theories and Trends, ed. by Bernard Schiele, Michel Claessens & Shunke Shi, 269‒279. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther & Theo van Leeuwen. 1996. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1990. “Drawing Things Together.” In Representation in Scientific Practice, ed. by Michael L. Lynch & Steve Woolgar, 19‒68. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay. 2005. “Multimedia Genre and Traversals.” Folia Linguistica 39 (1‒2): 45‒56.Google Scholar
Lievrouw, Leah A. 1990. “Communication and the Social Representation of Scientific Knowledge.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 (1): 1‒10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 2006. “The Production of Scientific Images: Vision and Re-Vision in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science.” In Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication, ed. by Luc Pauwels, 26‒40. Hanover NH: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
Machin, David. 2007. Introduction to Multimodal Analysis. New York: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Messaris, Paul. 1994. Visual Literacy: Image, Mind and Reality. Boulder CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Visual Aspects of Media Literacy.” Journal of Communication 48 (1) (Winter): 70‒80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norman, Donald A. 2002. “Emotion and Design: Attractive Things Work Better.” Interactions Magazine ix (4): 36‒42. Accessed December 1, 2017. [URL].
Pauwels, Luc. 2006. “Representing Moving Cultures: Expression, Multivocality and Reflexivity in Anthropological and Sociological Filmmaking.” In Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication, ed. by Luc Pauwels, 120‒152. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, Carmen. 2012. Scientific Discourse and the Rhetoric of Globalisation: The Impact of Culture and Language. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Puschmann, Cornelius. 2015. “A Digital Mob in the Ivory Tower? Context Collapse in Scholarly Communication Online.” In Discourse in and through the Media, ed. by Marina Bondi, Silvia Cacchiani & Davide Mazzi, 22‒45. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Riise, Jan. 2008. “Bringing Science to the Public.” In Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices, ed. by Donghong Cheng, Michel Claessens, Toss Gascoigne, Jenni Metcalfe, Bernard Schiele & Shunke Shi, 301‒309. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roland, Marie-Claude. 2007. “The Changing Paradigm of Science Communication: Challenges for Researchers. From a ‘Deficit Model’ to a ‘Democratic Model’.” In Communicating European Research 2005: Proceedings of the Conference, ed. by Michel Claessens, 63‒67. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sancho Guinda, Carmen. 2015. “Genres on the Move: Currency and Erosion of the Genre Moves Construct.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19: 73‒87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Semiotic Shortcuts: The Graphical Abstract Strategies of Engineering Students.” Hermes ‒ Journal of Language and Communication in Business 55: 61‒90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. “Afterword.” In Abstracts in Academic Discourse, ed. by Marina Bondi & Rosa Lorés Sanz, 319‒323. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. & Christine B. Feak. 1994 [2012]. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. 3rd edition. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
The Design and Emotion Society website. 2005. Accessed December 1, 2017. [URL].
Trumbo, Jean. 2006. “Making Science Visible: Visual Literacy in Science Communication.” In Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication, ed. by Luc Pauwels, 266‒283. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press.Google Scholar
Tufte, Edward. 1983. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
Turnbull, Judith. 2015. “Knowledge Dissemination Online: The Case of Health Information.” In Discourse in and through the Media, ed. by Marina Bondi, Silvia Cacchiani & Davide Mazzi, 290‒314. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2016. Discurso y Conocimiento. Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Van Langenhove, Luc & Rom Harré. 1999. “Positioning and the Writing of Science.” In Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of International Action, ed. by Rom Harré & Luc van Langenhove, 102‒115. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wang, Alex. 2006. “Advertising Engagement: A Driver of Message Involvement on Message Effects.” Journal of Advertising Research 46 (4): 355‒368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weingart, Peter. 1998. “Science and the Media.” Research Policy 27 (8): 869‒879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 2009. “Visual Metaphor versus Verbal Metaphor: A Unified Account.” In Multimodal Metaphor, ed. by Charles J. Forceville & Eduardo Urios-Aparisi, 147‒172. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Interactions with Readers through Online Specialised Genres. Specificity or Adaptability?” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by Luz Gil Salom & Carmen Soler-Monreal, 189‒208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Yiqiong & Kay L. O’Halloran. 2014. “From Popularization to Marketization: The Hypermodal Nucleus in Institutional Science News.” In Critical Multimodal Studies of Popular Discourse, ed. by Emilia Djonov & Sumin Zhao, 160‒177. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sources of samples
Figure 2. “The Road to Medical Vibrational Spectroscopy – A History” by Henry H. Mantsch (2013). Analyst 138: 3863–3870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 4. “Total Synthesis of (+) Haplophytine” by K. C. Nicolaou, Stephen M. Dalby, Shuoliang Li, Takahiro Suzuki & David Y. K. Chen (2009). Angewandte Chemie International Edition 48 (41): 7616–7620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 5. “From Chelate C, N-C Cyclopalladated Oximes to C, N, N’-, C, N, S-, Formation of Oxime Ether Ligands” by Antonio Abellán López, María-Teresa Chicote, Delia Bautista & José Vicente (2012). Organometallics 31 (21): 7434–7446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 6. “Efficient Production and Characterization of the Sweet-Tasting Brazzein Secreted by the Yeast Pichia pastoris” by Nicolas Poirier, Natacha Roudnitky, Anne Brockoff, Christine Belloir, Marie Maison, Thierry Thomas-Danguin, Wolfgang Meyerhof & Loïc Briand (2012). Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 60 (39): 9807–9814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 7A. “The Excited State Antiaromatic Benzene Ring: A Molecular Mr. Hyde?” by Raffaello Papadakis & Hentik Ottoson (2015). Chemical Society Review 44: 6472–6493.Google Scholar
Figure 7B. “Insights into the Crystal-packing Effects on the Spin Crossover of [FeIII(1-bpp)]2+-based Materials” by Sergi Vela, Juan J. Novoa & Jordi Ribas-Arino (2014). Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 48: 27012–27024.Google Scholar
Figure 8A. “TBu or Not tBu” by Sten O. Nilsson Lill, Per Ryberg, Tobias Rein, Evelina Bennström, & Per-Norrby Ola (2012). Chemistry. A European Journal 18 (6): 1640–1649. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 8B. “New for Old. Password to the Thermodynamics of the Protic Ionic Liquids” by Sergey P. Verevkin, Dzmitry H. Zaitsau, Bo Tong & Urs Welz-Biermann 2011. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 13: 12708–12711. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 9A. “Wolfphos in Sheep’s Clothing: The First Trinuclear Triboryl- and Other Boryl Platinum Complexes Featuring a Flexible Phosphine Ligand” by Holger Braunschweig, Peter Brenner & Krzysztof Radacki (2013). Zaac 639 (7): 1129–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 9B. “Current Trends in Finite-Time Thermodynamics” by Bjarne Andresen (2011). Angewandte Chemie 50 (12): 2690–2704. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 10. “Resonant Raman Scattering of ZnSxSe1−x Solid Solutions: The Role of S and Se Electronic States” by M. Dimitrievska, H. Xie, A. J. Jackson, X. Fontané, M. Espíndola-Rodríguez, E. Saucedo, A. Pérez-Rodríguez, A. Walsh & V. Izquierdo-Roca (2016). Physical. Chemistry Chemical Physics 18: 7632–7640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 11A. “Iron Absorption in Drosophila melanogaster” by Konstantinos Mandilaras, Tharse Pathmanathan & Fanis Missirlis (2013). Nutrients 5 (5): 1622–1647; DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 11B. “Mechanistic Aspects of Gas-Phase Hydrogen-Atom Transfer from Methane to [CO].+ and [SiO].+: Why Do They Differ?” by Nicolas Dietl, Anna Troiani, Maria Schlangen, Ornella Ursini, Giancarlo Angelini, Yitzhak Apeloig, Giulia de Petris & Helmut Schwarz (2013). Chemistry. A European Journal 19 (21): 6662–6669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Figure 11C. “Ionic liquids of Superior Thermal Stability” by Cody G. Cassity, Arsalan Mirjafari Niloufar Mobarrez, Katie J. Strickland, Richard A. O’Brien & James H. Davis, Jr. (2013). Chemical Communication 69: 7590–7592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sancho-Guinda, Carmen
2021. This Has Changed: ‘Out-of-the-Box’ Metadiscourse in Scientific Graphical Abstracts. In Metadiscourse in Digital Communication, ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 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.