Email this article Representation of gene-editing in British and Italian newspapers. A cross-linguistic corpus-assisted discourse study
Abstract
This study provides a cross-linguistic overview of the most recurrent representation strategies of gene-editing in British and Italian newspapers over a period between 2015 and 2018. The aim of the study is to a) identify the archetypal representations in English and in Italian, also considering translation-related issues, and b) to assess whether these representations are positively or negatively framed across the corpora. The research is carried out in a quantiqualitative vein, using the method of corpus-assisted discourse analysis. Corpus linguistics tools are used for text search and data processing and rely on the triangulation of normalized frequency, dispersion and range parameters. Methods of (critical) discourse analysis are applied to the qualitative part of the research. Literature on science popularization and metaphorical framing of genetic concepts is also part of the analytical toolkit. The findings identify a relative lack of terminological stability concerning the denomination choices, especially evident in the Italian corpus. The archetypal representation strategy revolves around the idea of technology and (physical) change. The analysis highlights the use of some ideologically charged denominations across the corpora, with a prevalently positive framing of the technology as applied to agriculture in the Italian corpus and a more balanced framing of gene-editing in the UK corpus. The findings uncovered a paradigm shift in the metaphorical representation of genome: from a mysterious code of life to a domesticated and operationalized idea of a tool.
References
Baker P. 2006, Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis, Continuum, London.
Baker P., Gabrielatos C., Khosravinik M., Krzyzanowski M., McEnery T. and Wodak R. 2008, A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press, in “Discourse and Society” 19 [3], pp. 273-306.
Benjamin R. 2015, Interrogating Equity: A Disability Justice Approach to Genetic Engineering, in Commissioned Papers of the International Summit on Human Gene Editing, Washington D.C., pp. 48-51.
Biber D. 2006, University Language: A Corpus-based Study, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/New York.
Biber D., Reppen R., Schnur E. and Ghanem R. 2016, On the (Non)Utility of Juilland’s D to Measure Lexical Dispersion in Large Corpora, in “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics” 21 [4], pp. 439-464.
Breeze R. 2013, Lexical Bundles across Four Legal Genres, in “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics” 18 [2], pp. 229-53.
Calsamiglia H. and van Dijk T.A. 2004, Popularization Discourse and Knowledge about Genome, in “Discourse and Society” 15 [4], pp.369-389.
Enciclopedia DeAgostini. http://www.sapere.it/enciclopedia/.
Fairclough N. 1995, Media Discourse, Edward Arnold, London.
Fairclough N. 2014, Language and Power, Longman, London.
Farquhar S. and Fitzsimons P. 2016, Seeing through the Metaphor: the OECD Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood, in “Semiotica” 212, pp. 97-110.
Furiassi C., Pulcini V. and Rodríguez González F. (eds.) 2012, The Anglicization of European lexis, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Garzone G. 2006, Perspectives on ESP and Popularization, CUEM, Milan.
Garzone G. 2014, News Production and Scientific Knowledge: Exploring Popularization as a Process, in Caliendo G. and Bongo G. (eds.), The Language of Popularization: Die Sprache der Popularisierung, Peter Lang, Bern, pp. 73-107.
Garzone G. 2018, Scientific Knowledge and Legislative Drafting: Focus on Surrogacy Laws, in “Lingue Culture Mediazioni / Languages Cultures Mediation” 5 [1], pp. 9-36.
Gotti M. 2014, Reformulation and Recontextualization in Popularization Discourse, in “Ibérica” 27, pp. 15-34.
Goźdź–Roszkowski S. 2011, Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus–Based study, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
Grande Dizionario Italiano Hoepli. http://www.grandidizionari.it/Dizionario_Italiano/.
Gries S.T. 2008, Dispersions and Adjusted Frequencies in Corpora, in “International Journal of Corpus Linguistics” 13 [4], pp. 403-437.
Gries S.T. 2019, Analyzing Dispersion, in Paquot M. and Gries S.T. (eds.), Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, Springer, Berlin/New York. http://www.stgries.info/research/ToApp_STG_Dispersion_PHCL.pdf (23.01.2019).
Hall S. 1997, Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, Sage, London.
Halliday M.A.K. 1994, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Edward Arnold, London.
Haugen E. 1950, The Analysis of Linguistic Borrowing, in “Language” 26 [2], pp. 210-231.
Hyland K. 2010, Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in Popular and Professional Science, in “Journal of English for Academic Purposes” 9, pp. 116-127.
King M. and Watson K. 2005, Introduction, in King M. and Watson K. (eds.), Representing Health: Discourses of Health and Illness in the Media, Palgrave, London, pp. 1-22.
Louw B. 1993, Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies, in Baker M., Francis G. and Tognini-Bonelli E. (eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, John Benjamins, Philadelphia/Amsterdam, pp. 157-176.
Marks L., Kalaitzandonakes N., Wilkins L. and Zakharova L. 2007, Mass Media Framing of Biotechnology News, in “Public Understanding of Science” 16 [2], pp. 183-203.
Mattiello E. 2019, “Designer Babies” and “Playing God”: Metaphor, Genome Editing, and Bioethics in Popular Science Texts, in “Languages, Cultures, Mediation” 6, pp. 65-88.
Nami F., Basiri M., Satarian L., Curtiss C., Baharvand H. and Verfaillie C. 2018, Strategies for In Vivo Genome Editing in Nondividing Cells, in “Trends in Biotechnology” 36 [8], pp. 770-786.
Nelkin D. 2001, Molecular Metaphors: The Gene in Popular Discourse, in “Nature Reviews Genetics” 2 [7], 555-559.
Nerlich B. and Hellsten I. 2004, Genomics: Shifts in Metaphorical Landscape, in “New Genetics and Society” 23 [3], pp. 255-268.
Nikitina J. 2018, Legal Style Markers and Their Translation: Written Pleadings at the ECtHR, Edizioni accademiche italiane / OmniScriptum Publishing, Beau Bassin.
Nikitina J. 2020, Representing Gene-Editing in Newspapers: between Science Dissemination and Fantasy, in Garzone G., Doerr R. and De Riso G. (eds.), Representing, Disseminating, and Debating Controversial Bioethical Issues in Literature and Popularised Discourse. Special issue of Anglistica AION.
O’Keefe M., Perrault S., Halpern J., Ikemoto L., Yarborough M. and UC North Bioethics Collaboratory for Life and Health Sciences 2015, ‘Editing’ Genes: A Case Study about How Language Matters in Bioethics, in “The American Journal of Bioethics” 15 [12], pp. 3-10.
Partington A. 2004, Introduction: Corpora and Discourse, A Most Congruous Beast, in Partington A., Morley J. and Haarman L. (eds.), Corpora and Discourse, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, pp. 11-20.
Petersen A. 2001, Biofantasies: Genetics and Medicine in the Print News Media, in “Social Science and Medicine” 52 [8], pp. 1255-1268.
Piatek A., Lenaghan S. and Stewart N. 2018, Advanced Editing of the Nuclear and Plastid Genomes in Plants, in “Plant Science” 273, pp. 42-49.
Pramling N. and Säljö R. 2007, Scientific Knowledge, Popularisation, and the Use of Metaphors: Modern Genetics in Popular Science Magazines, in “Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research” 51 [3], pp. 275-295.
Reisigl M. and Wodak R. 2001, Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Anti-Semitism, Routledge, London.
Santulli F. 1999, L’interferenza. Lezioni, Arcipelago, Milan.
Scott M. 2015, Wordsmith Tools version 6 [computer software], Lexical Analysis Software, Stroud.
Sinclair J. 1986, Fictional Worlds, in Coulthard M. (ed.), Talking about Text: Studies Presented to David Brazil on his Retirement. Discourse Analysis Monographs No. 13, English Language Research, University of Birmingham, pp. 43-60.
Sinclair J. 1991, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Stubbs M. 1994, Grammar, Text, and Ideology: Computer-assisted Methods in the Linguistics of Representation, in “Applied Linguistics” 15 [2], pp. 201-223.
Stubbs M. 2001, Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics, Blackwell, Oxford.
Treccani Vocabolario Online. http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/.
van Dijk T. 1998, Ideology: A Multi-disciplinary Approach, Sage, Thousand Oaks (CA).
van Dijk T. 1993, Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis, in “Discourse and Society” 4 [2], pp. 249-283.
van Dijk T. 2005, Discourse and Racism in Spain and Latin America, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Full Text: PDF
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
