Article published In:
Expressing and Describing SurpriseEdited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 415–435
Edited by Agnès Celle and Laure Lansari
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 13:2] 2015
► pp. 415–435
Surprise routines in scientific writing
A study of French social science articles
Emotions are almost absent from scientific articles except surprise, which plays a specific role in this genre. Surprise markers such as contrairement à nos
attentes (‘contrary to our expectations’) or ce résultat relativement surprenant (‘this somewhat surprising result’) are used in the framework of a scientific prediction model, implicit or explicitly formulated. A corpus linguistic study of adjectival and verbal markers allows us to determine several trends: (a) contrary to other genres such as novels or newspaper articles, surprise is not polar, that is to say it is neither positive nor negative, but stylistically “neutral”, (b) surprise is far more source-oriented than experiencer-oriented, (c) surprise generally involves the reader as a witness, and contributes, with other rhetorical markers, to “interlocutive” dialogism, (d) surprise often occurs in a prefabricated discursive scenario including several steps: (i) prediction model, (ii) observed facts, (iii) expression of surprise (or absence of surprise), (iv) explanation of surprising facts. Finally, we can question the status of surprise as an affect in scientific writing. It seems to be more a state of consciousness associated with the observation of complex facts. In any case, it appears to be a complex state, with rich conceptual content.
Keywords: surprise, stance, scientific writing, emotions
References (27)
Augustyn, M., Ben Hamou, S., Bloquet, G., Goossens, V., Loiseau, M., & Rinck, F. (2008). Constitution de ressources pédagogiques numériques: Le lexique des affects. In M. Loiseau, M. Abouzaïd, L. Buson, C. Cavalla, A. Djauron, C. Dugua, et al. (Eds.), Autour de la langue et du langage: Perspective pluridisciplinaire (pp. 407–414). Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
Boch, F., Grossmann, F., & Rinck, F. (2007). Conformément à nos attentes: Les marqueurs de convergence/divergence dans l’article de linguistique. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée, 2(12), 109–122. URL : [URL]. 
Boch, F., & Rinck, F. (to appear). Anaphores démonstratives dans les écrits d’étudiants de Master. Comparaison avec les pratiques expertes. Linx.
Caffi, C., & Janney, R.W. (1994). Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication. Journal of Pragmatics, 22(3), 325–373.
Celle, A., & Lansari, L. (2014). ‘I’m surprised’ / ‘Are you surprised?’ Surprise as an argumentation tool in verbal interaction. In P. Blumenthal, I. Novakova, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Les émotions dans le discours / Emotions in discourse (pp. 267–277). Bern: Peter Lang.
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T., & Kinn, T. (2006). Academic voices across languages and disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329–346.
Grossmann, F., & Tutin, A. (2010a). Evidential Markers in French Scientific Writing: the Case of the French Verb voir
. In E. Smirnova & G. Diewald (Eds.), Evidentiality in European languages (pp. 167–197). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. (2010b). Les marqueurs verbaux de constat: Un lieu de dialogisme dans l’écrit scientifique. Actes du colloque Dialogisme: langue, discours 2010, 8–10 septembre 2010. Montpellier, Praxiling. [URL].
Grossmann, F., Tutin, A., & Garcia Da Silva, P. (2009). Filiation et transfert d’objets scientifiques dans les écrits de recherche. Pratiques, 143/1441, 187–202.
Grossmann, F., & Wirth, F. (2007). Marking evidentiality in scientific papers: The case of expectation markers. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse (pp. 202–218). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Hartwell, L., & Jacques, M.-P. (2014). Authorial presence in French and English: ‘Pronoun + verb’ patterns in biology and medicine research articles. Discours, 151.
Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amtserdam: John Benjamins.
. (2002). Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 1091–1112.
Kern, B., & Grutchus, A. (2014).
Surprise vs étonnement: Comportement discursif et perspectives contrastives. In P. Blumenthal, I. Novakova, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Les émotions dans le discours / Emotions in discourse (pp. 187–198). Bern: Peter Lang.
Kövecses, Z. (2003). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Micheli, R. (2010). L’émotion argumentée: L’abolition de la peine de mort dans le débat parlementaire français. Paris: Éd. du Cerf.
Novakova, I., Goossens, V., & Grossmann, F. (2013). Interactions entre profil discursif et structures actancielles: l’exemple des verbes de surprise et de respect. Langue Française, 41, 31–46.
Novakova, I., & Sorba, J. (2013).
Stupéfier et jalouser dans les séquences textuelles journalistiques: Quel profil discursif pour quelle stratégie argumentative? Le discours et la langue, 4(1), 203–220.
. (2014). L’émotion dans le discours. À la recherche du profil discursif de stupeur et de jalousie
. In P. Blumenthal, I. Novakova, & D. Siepmann (Eds.), Les émotions dans le discours / Emotions in discourse (pp. 161–173). Bern: Peter Lang.
Ortony, A., Clore, G., & Collin, A. (1999). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piolat, A., & Bannour, R. (2009). EMOTAIX: Un scénario de tropes pour l’identification automatisée du lexique émotionnel et affectif. Année psychologique, 109(4), 655–698.
Plantin C. (2011). Les bonnes raisons des émotions: Principes et méthode pour l’étude du discours émotionné. Bern: Lang.
Ruwet, N. (1994). Être ou ne pas être un verbe de sentiment. Langue française, 1031, 45–55.
Swales, J., & Burke, A. (2003). “It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In P. Leistyna & C.F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Tutin, A. (2010).
Dans cet article, nous souhaitons montrer que…: Lexique verbal et positionnement de l’auteur dans les articles en sciences humaines. Lidil. Revue de linguistique et de didactique des langues, 411, 15–40.
Tutin, A., & Grossmann, F. (Eds). (2014). L’écrit scientifique: Du lexique au discours. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
McKeown, Jamie
2024. A contrastive investigation of the performative and descriptive use of surprise frames in judicial opinions of the HKSAR. Journal of Pragmatics 232 ► pp. 41 ff. 
Wang, Qian & Guangwei Hu
2022. What surprises, interests and confuses researchers? A frame-based analysis of knowledge emotion markers in research articles. Lingua 279 ► pp. 103426 ff.
Chen, Lang & Guangwei Hu
2020. Mediating Knowledge through Expressing Surprises: A Frame-based Analysis of Surprise Markers in Research Articles across Disciplines and Research Paradigms. Discourse Processes 57:8 ► pp. 659 ff.
Chen, Lang & Guangwei Hu
2020. Surprise markers in applied linguistics research articles: A diachronic perspective. Lingua 248 ► pp. 102992 ff.
Hu, Guangwei & Lang Chen
2019. “To our great surprise …”: A frame-based analysis of surprise markers in research articles. Journal of Pragmatics 143 ► pp. 156 ff.
Grossmann, Francis
2017. Vingt ans de travaux sur l’écriture de recherche : Quel bilan pour préparer l’avenir ?. In Théories-didactiques de la lecture et de l’écriture, ► pp. 111 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 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.