Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts

Scientific journal articles written for specialist audiences and popularized accounts of the same research differ in their cohesive patterns. This difference can be related to different uses of readers’ knowledge in the two kinds of texts. In general, readers of scientific texts must have a knowledge of lexical relations to see the implicit cohesion of the text, while readers of popularizations must see the explicitly marked cohesive relations to infer lexical relations, and to link the semantic field of the specialized domain to those of everyday life. An attempt to develop a computational model of cohesion, a procedure that would not have to draw on domain knowledge, has produced a number of examples of the kinds of knowledge required to link sentences in scientific texts. It has also highlighted some of the devices through which this knowledge is conveyed in popular texts. Examples are drawn from texts selected from a corpus of specialized and popular articles on one discovery in molecular genetics. Th...

[1]  Jerry R. Hobbs.  Resolving pronoun references , 1986 .

[2]  B. Latour.  Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society , 1989 .

[3]  Igor Mel’čuk,et al.  Surface syntax of English , 1986 .

[4]  Alain Polguère,et al.  A Formal Lexicon in the Meaning-Text Theory (or How to Do Lexica with Words) , 1987, Comput. Linguistics.

[5]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora , 1986 .

[6]  B. Wynne.  Unruly Technology: Practical Rules, Impractical Discourses and Public Understanding , 1988 .

[7]  Bonnie Webber,et al.  So what can we talk about now , 1986 .

[8]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice by H. M. Collins (review) , 1988, Technology and Culture.

[9]  R. Roberts,et al.  An amazing sequence arrangement at the 5′ ends of adenovirus 2 messenger RNA , 1977, Cell.

[10]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Thematic Processes in the Comprehension of Technical Prose. , 1982 .

[11]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[12]  W A Woods,et al.  Procedural Semantics as a Theory of Meaning. , 1981 .

[13]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[14]  C. Bazerman.  Physicists Reading Physics , 1985 .

[15]  Wendy G. Lehnert,et al.  Strategies for Natural Language Processing , 1982 .

[16]  H. Lodish.  Molecular Cell Biology , 1986 .

[17]  Ronald Carter,et al.  Vocabulary: Applied Linguistic Perspectives , 1987 .

[18]  James E. Darnell,et al.  The definition of a large viral transcription unit late in Ad2 infection of HeLa cells: Mapping of nascent RNA molecular labeled in isolated nuclei , 1977, Cell.

[19]  Saul A. Kripke,et al.  SPEAKER'S REFERENCE and SEMANTIC REFERENCE , 1977 .

[20]  Bonnie L. Webber,et al.  Tense as Discourse Anaphor , 1988, CL.

[21]  Teun A. van Dijk,et al.  Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse , 1977 .

[22]  B. Webber,et al.  Elements of Discourse Understanding , 1983 .

[23]  Michael Brady,et al.  Computational Models of Discourse , 1983 .

[24]  D. Tannen.  Repetition in conversation as spontaneous formulaicity , 1987 .

[25]  Myrna Gopnik.  Linguistic structures in scientific texts , 1972 .

[26]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  Inference and the Computer Understanding of Natural Language , 1973, Artif. Intell..