صندلی اداری طراحی قالب وردپرس آموزش وردپرس

Google Talks as a new knowledge dissemination genre


Abstract


This study explores the new knowledge dissemination (KD) online genre of Google Talks, in both qualitative and quantitative terms. In particular, the study combines two complementary strands of linguistic investigation – discourse analysis and corpus analysis – to inspect and describe the features that characterise Google Talks as popularisation discourse, as compared to both traditional and new web-based genres. The qualitative analysis of three case studies belonging to the fields of economics, political science, and medicine shows both a continuity between Google Talks and other forms of popularisation, such as TED Talks, and a departure from more traditional genres in academic and institutional settings addressed at non-experts (academic lectures) or colleagues (conference presentations). A quantitative corpus-based analysis of evaluative adjectives shows that Google speakers frequently use aesthetic and emotion adjectives to encourage audience participation and create intimacy and proximity with hearers. In general, Google Talks imposes not only a simplification but also a reformulation and recontextualisation of specialised knowledge in a more interactive and dynamic web-based context.

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v29p359

Keywords: Google Talks; knowledge dissemination (KD); popularisation; evaluative adjectives; web genre

References


Anthony L. 2016, Looking from the past to the future in ESP through a corpus-based analysis of English for Specific Purposes journal titles, in “English Teaching and Learning” 40 [4], pp. 91-107.

Artiga León M.R. 2006, The semantic-pragmatic interface of authorial presence in academic lecturing phraseology, in “Ibérica” 12, pp. 127-144.

Baldry A. and Thibault P.J. 2006, Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook, Equinox, London/Oakville.

Bamford J. 2009, Patterns of description in lectures in science and technology, in Radighieri S. and Tucker P. (eds.), Point of View: Description and Evaluation across Discourses, Officina Edizioni, Rome, pp. 195-210.

De Beaugrande R. and Dressler W.U. 1981, Introduction to Text Linguistics, Longman. London.

Bhatia V.K. 1993, Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings, Longman, London.

Bhatia V.K. 1995, Genre-mixing and in professional communication: The case of ‘private intentions’ v. ‘socially recognised purposes’, in Bruthiaux P., Boswood T. and Bertha B. (eds.), Explorations in English for Professional Communication. City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, pp. 1-19.

Bhatia V.K. 2004, Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View, Continuum, London.

Bhatia V.K. 2012, Critical reflections on genre analysis, in “Ibérica” 24, pp. 17-28.

Bucher H.-J. and Niemann P. 2012, Visualizing science: The reception of powerpoint presentations, in “Visual Communication” 11 [3], pp. 283-306.

Caliendo G. 2012, The popularization of science in web-based genres, in Caliendo G. and Bongo G. (eds.), The Language of Popularization: Theoretical and Descriptive Models / Die Sprache der Popularisierung: theoretische und deskriptive Modelle, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 101-132.

Caliendo G. and Compagnone A. 2014, Expressing epistemic stance in university lectures and TED talks: A contrastive corpus-based analysis, in “Lingue e Linguaggi” 11, pp. 105-122.

Calsamiglia H. and van Dijk T.A. 2004, Popularization discourse and knowledge about the genome, in “Discourse & Society” 15 [4], pp. 369-389.

Carter-Thomas S. and Rowley-Jolivet E. 2003, Analysing the scientific conference presentation (CP). A methodological overview of a multimodal genre, in “ASp” 39-40, pp. 59-72.

Compagnone A. 2014, Knowledge dissemination and environmentalism: Exploring the language of TED Talks, in Chiavetta E., Sciarrino S. and Williams C. (eds.), Popularisation and the Media, Edipuglia, Bari, pp. 7-25.

Crawford Camiciottoli B.B. 2008, Interaction in academic lectures vs. written text materials: The case of questions, in “Journal of Pragmatics” 40, pp. 1216-1231.

Crawford Camiciottoli B.B. 2015, Elaborating explanations during Open CourseWare humanities lectures: The interplay of verbal and nonverbal strategies, in Crawford Camiciottoli B. and Fortanet-Gómez I. (eds.), Multimodal Analysis in Academic Settings. From Research to Teaching, Routledge, New York, pp. 144-170.

Crawford Camiciottoli B.B. 2016, Chapter Three: A multimodal analysis of interaction in academic lectures: A case study, in Bonsignori V. and Crawford Camiciottoli B.B. (eds.), Multimodality across Communicative Settings, Discourse Domains and Genres, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 65-92.

Fairclough N. 2003, Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, Routledge, London/New York.

Felices Lago Á. 1997, The integration of the axiological classeme in an adjectival lexicon based on functional-lexematic principles, in Butler C.S., Connolly J.H., Gatward R.A. and Vismans R.M. (eds.), A Fund of Ideas: Recent Developments in Functional Grammar, IFOTT, Amsterdam, pp. 95-112.

Fortanet I. 2004, The use of ‘we’ in university lectures: reference and function, in “English for Specific Purposes” 23, pp. 45-66.

Garside R. 1987, The CLAWS Word-tagging System, in Garside R., Leech G. and Sampson G. (eds.), The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-based Approach, Longman, London, pp. 30-41.

Garzone G. 2006, Perspectives on ESP and Popularization, CUEM, Milano.

Garzone G. 2012, Where do Web genres come from? The case of blogs, in Campagna S., Garzone G., Ilie C. and Rowley-Jolivet E. (eds.), Evolving Genres in Web-mediated Communication, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 217-242.

Gotti M. 2014, Reformulation and recontextualization in popularization discourse, in “Ibérica” 27, pp. 15-34.

Hertz B. 2015, Spotlight on the Presenter. A Study into Presentations of Conference Papers with PowerPoint, PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Hood S. and Forey G. 2005, Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 4 [4], pp. 291-306.

Hyland K. 2010, Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional science, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 9, pp. 116-127.

Jurado J.V. 2017, A Multimodal Approach to Persuasion in Oral Presentations, PhD thesis, Universitat Jaume I and Ghent University, Spain.

Kress G. and van Leeuwen T. 1996, Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design, Routledge, London.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. 1980, L’enonciation de la subjectivité dans le langage, Armand Colin, Paris.

Luzón M.J. 2013, Public communication of science in blogs: Recontextualizing scientific discourse for a diversified audience, in “Written Communication” 30 [4], pp. 428-457.

Masi S. 2016, Gestures in motion in TED Talks: Towards multimodal literacy, in Bonsignori V. and Crawford Camiciottoli B.B. (eds.), Multimodality across Communicative Settings, Discourse Domains and Genres, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 146-165.

Mattiello E. 2017, The popularisation of science via TED Talks, in “International Journal of Language Studies” 11 [4], pp. 77-106.

Mauranen A. 2013, Hybridism, edutainment, and doubt: Science blogging finding its feet, in “Nordic Journal of English Studies” 13 [1], pp. 7-36.

McNeill D. 1992, Hand and Mind: What the Hands Reveal about Thought, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Myers G. 2010, The Discourse of Blogs and Wikis, Continuum, London.

Rowley-Jolivet E. 1999, The pivotal role of conference papers in the network of scientific communication, in “ASp” 23-26, pp. 179-196.

Rowley-Jolivet E. and Carter-Thomas S. 2005, Genre awareness and rhetorical appropriacy: Manipulation of information structure by NS and NNS scientists in the International Conference setting, in “English for Specific Purposes” 24, pp. 41-64.

Scotto di Carlo G. 2013, Humour in popularisation: Analysis of humour-related laughter in TED talks, in “European Journal of Humour Research” 1 [4], pp. 81-93. https://europeanjournalofhumour.org/index.php/ejhr/article/view/43/Scotto%20di%20Carlo (15.08.2018).

Scotto di Carlo G. 2015, Stance in TED talks: Strategic use of subjective adjectives in online popularisation, in “Ibérica” 29 [1], pp. 201-222.

Swales J.M. 1990, Genre Analysis, English in Academic and Research Settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Swales J.M. 2004, Research Genres: Explorations and Application, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Talks at Google. Where Great Minds Meet. https://talksat.withgoogle.com/ (10.05.2017).

Walsh P. 2004, A complex interplay of choices: First and second person pronouns in university lectures, in Bamford J. and Anderson L. (eds.), Evaluation in Oral and Written Academic Discourse, Officina Edizioni, Rome, pp. 32-52.

Wulff S., Swales J. and Keller K. 2009, ‘We have about seven minutes for questions’: The discussion sessions from a specialized conference, in “English for Specific Purposes” 28 [2], pp. 79-92.


Full Text: pdf

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License.