Knowledge dissemination and ideology-framing in digital communication. The case of law journal abstracts


Abstract


Over the course of the last decades, digital communication has contributed significantly to the dissemination of scientific knowledge, thus allowing also lay readers access to material primarily intended for expert audiences. This change has also affected domains, like legal research, which are traditionally and explicitly targeted to ‘insiders’, and particularly the esoteric community (i.e. experts working on similar cases/issues, as opposed to the exoteric scientific community at large). For the products of legal research to become appealing and ‘usable’ for both these audiences, their (meta-)representation needs to be strategically designed in order for legal academic texts to be recognized as authoritative sources where to find relevant contents and their discussion. This is the main purpose of abstracts (RAAs), which are meant to anticipate the main information contained in the associated research article (RA) in a way that is clear, comprehensible and cognitively appealing, so as to encourage readers to read the ensuing text in full. On this basis, this study analyses RAA discourse in online legal publications: a corpus of 100 RAAs from the Harvard Law Review (https://harvardlawreview.org/issues/) is investigated in order to show how discursive choices may depend upon the epistemology of the domain, the content discussed (which may range from constitutional law, foreign affairs and national security to issues concerning privacy, intellectual property or civil rights), the target audience’s competence, background knowledge, motivation, or needs, and, ultimately, the purpose of the RA (i.e. speculative reasons vs practical application).

DOI Code: 10.1285/i22390359v34p211

Keywords: legal studies; research article abstracts; engagement

References


Bondi M. and Lorés Sanz R. (eds.) 2014, Abstracts in Academic Discourse. Variation and Change, Peter Lang, Bern.

Brown J., Collins A. and Duguid P. 1989, Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning, in “Educational Researcher” 18, pp. 32-42.

Bruffee K. 1986, Social Construction: Language and the Authority of Knowledge, in “College English” 48, pp. 773-779.

Eagleton T. 1991, Ideology, Verso, London.

Fairclough N. 1992, Discourse and Social Change, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Fairclough N. 2001, Language and Power, Longman, London.

Fairclough N. 2003, Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research, Routledge, London.

Garzone G. and Catenaccio P. (eds.) 2008, Language and Bias in Specialized Discourse, CUEM, Milan.

Gibbons J. 2003, Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Hawking S. 1993, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, Bantam Books, New York.

Hiltunen T. 2006, Coming-to-know Verbs in Research Articles in Three Academic Disciplines, in Neuman C., Plo Alastrué R. and Pérez-Llantada Auría C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International AELFE Conference, Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, pp. 246-251.

Huckin T. 2006, Abstracting from Abstracts, in Hewings M. (ed.) Academic Writing in Context: Implications and Applications, Continuum, London, pp. 93-105.

Hyland K. 2002, Activity and Evaluation: Reporting Practices in Academic Writing, in Flowerdew J. (ed.) Academic Discourse, Pearson Educational Limited, Harlow, pp. 115-130.

Hyland K. 2004, Disciplinary Discourses. Social Interactions in Academic Writing, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Hyland K. 2005, Metadiscourse, Continuum, London.

Knorr-Cetina K. 1981, The Manufacture of Knowledge, Pergamon Press, Oxford.

Marshall C. 1989, Representing the Structure of a Legal Argument, in ICAIL ’89: Proceedings of the 2ndinternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM Press, New York, pp. 121-127.

Myers G. 1990, Writing Biology. Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Neumann R. 2005, Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing: Structure, Strategy, and Style, Aspen Publishers, New York.

Sala M. 2010, Interrogative Forms as Professional Identity Markers in Legal Research Articles, in Garzone G. and Archibald J. (eds.), Discourse, Identities and Roles in Specialized Communication, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 301-320.

Swales J. and Feak C. 2009, Abstracts and the Writing of Abstracts, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Tessuto G. 2012, Investigating English Legal Genres in Academic and Professional Contexts, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Tiersma P. and Solan L. (eds.) 2012, The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Tognini-Bonelli E. 2001, Corpus Linguistics at Work, John Benjamins Publishers, Amsterdam.

Toulmin S. 1972, Human Understanding, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Williams C. and Gotti M. (eds.) 2005, Tradition and Change in Legal English: Verbal Constructions in Prescriptive Texts, Peter Lang, Bern.

van Dijk T.1998, Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Sage, London.

Ziman J. 1984, An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
کاغذ a4

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