Scientific discourse is rooted in the close interplay between human cognition and communication. Accordingly, the volume focuses on central aspects of this relationship and the variety of the approaches which are intended to capture these aspects. The book is divided into two related parts. The papers of the first part deal with textual issues, whereas those of the second raise epistemological problems. As a result, the volume is a rich and many-sided contribution to our understanding of how scientific knowledge is constructed and manifested in discourse.
About the Author
The Editor: András Kertész is Professor of German Linguistics at the University of Debrecen, Hungary. He is the editor of the journal Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik and author or editor of 11 books on the philosophy of science in general and theoretical linguistics in particular. His monographs include Die Modularität der Wissenschaft (1991), Artificial Intelligence and the Sociology of Knowledge (1993), Die Ferse und der Schild (1995), and Metalinguistik (1999).
Table of Contents
Contents: Gunther Dietz: The pragmatics of scientific titles formulated as questions – András Kertész: Scientific inquiry as a dialogue game: the case for ‘soft disciplines’ – Françoise Salager-Meyer: «This book portrays the worst form of mental terrorism»: critical speech acts in medical English book reviews (1940-2000) – Svitlana Zhabotynska: Author-profile in scholarly papers: Anglo-American vs. Ukrainian/Russian – Jean-Pierre Courtial: Cognition in language use: pointing out relational structure of scientific texts – Judit Gervain: When Chomsky meets Searle: an argumentation theoretical analysis of the debate between Chomsky and Searle – András Kertész: Metascience and the metaphorical structure of scientific discourse – Maria Tarantino: Heuristic approach to knowledge, language and meaning advancement: the conceptualization of light and the identification of HIV/AIDS – László Tarnay: Contexts, utterances and argumentation: are truth considerations entirely pragmatic or empty?