Some features of discourse as one of the forms of scientific style (based on the speech of Frank Elderson «The International Conference on Financial Inclusion»)

 

Scientific discourse is the processes and methods used to communicate and debate scientific information. Discourse focuses on how to arrive at and how to present scientific ideas and thoughts, taking into account a diverse range of audiences. Those audiences include peers, students, teachers, the general public, business and government organizations, or any other potential audience that may benefit from or contribute to scientific theory and consensus. Communication in scientific discourse refers to both written and spoken communication and often involves methods of reasoning as well as vocabularies used to present information, conclusions and ideas. Due to the specialized nature of scientific information, discourse in science constantly evolves to account for the variation of potential understanding as well as the objectives intended among various audiences.

Developing and maintaining a formalized, consistent way of thinking is also central to scientific discourse. A common concept inherent to all physical and natural sciences is thescientific method that demonstrates such a discourse. Deploying the scientific method accurately across the various domains of science ensures peers that studies are carried out with the same standards uniformly and that the results can be trusted. Straying from the scientific method tends to skew research results, and scientists who do so can expect backlash from peers as well as other audiences who have a stake in the research conducted.

Another common aspect of scientific discourse is the approach to reasoning often found among all natural and physical sciences. When investigating a subject, scientists do not try and prove a theory, but instead focus on trying to disprove or falsify the theory. Agreeing to such a discourse allows for efficient communication among peers and most audiences in which scientific information is distributed.

Rather than attempting to apply several modes of reasoning to solve scientific theories, one standard is utilized to mitigate risks associated with failing to understand individual reasoning, rather than scientific reasoning.

Furthermore, using consistent vocabularies and standards for written communication helps to ensure validity of research conducted. Publishing research in peer review journals, rather than simply self-publishing is one such example. Using this discourse not only allows peers to scrutinize scientific studies and efficiently share information, but it also demonstrates a degree of expertise for the publishingscientistto other audiences, such as academics and the general public. Although scientific discourse covers a broad range of subjects in addition to the aforementioned ones, it is these methods of reasoning that form the foundation of how such discourse usually proceeds.

This study intends to explore what stylistic features characterize scientific English and make it different from any other language used in any other discipline. This investigation deals with the linguistic features concerning the application of vocabulary, grammar, discourse and style used in scientific English. A comparative analysis of literary and scientific language has been undertaken to make the nature and discourse of scientific English clearer.

We have investigated an opening speech of Frank Elderson (Executive Director of DNB) at the International Conference on Financial Inclusion, organised by the Cash and Payment Systems Division of DNB.

We have analysed usage of personal pronouns, verb tense and voice, linguistic characteristics of scientific texts (logical coherence, objectivity, impersonal statement of facts, clarity, brevity, authority) and linguistic features of scientific discourse.

Personal pronouns:

The first person plural pronoun ‘we’ is quite frequent. The plural pronoun ‘we’ and its objective and possessive forms occur 10 times. The first person singular pronoun ‘I’ and its variants ‘my’, ‘me’ occurs 19 times. The ‘I’ variants all refer to speaker as Executive Director of DNB. In the text studied, the singular ‘I’ is more frequent than the plural pronoun ‘we’.

Frank Elderson, Executive Director of DNB, uses first person singular ‘I’ 10 times in the introduction of his speech to organised by the Cash and Payment Systems Division of DNB. Each of these first person plural and singular has advantages and disadvantages in different situations. The use of the singular form ‘I’ is advantageous when the speaker delivers good news or makes policies beneficial to all people. In this text, Frank Elderson applies the plural pronoun ‘we’ and its variants ‘our’ and ‘us’ 18 times. The ‘we’ pronoun can be either or inclusive. The inclusive ‘we’ includes the audience is used by the speaker in the hope of bringing them on her/his side.

Verb Tense and Voice:

Stylistic choices, such as verb tense and voice, affect an ethos as well. Present tense has more immediately than the past tense; use of the present tense gives the audience a sense of participation in events that are occurring at the moment. In English, verbs may assume one of the two voices — active and passive. Active verb constructions tend to lesson distance. Passive constructions, in contrast, tend to create distance. There are 15 passive voice statements in Frank Elderson's speech. He uses the passive voice to create the distance between himself. There are 120 active voice statements in Frank Elderson's speech.

Several classifications:

The methodology of science with its demand systematic researches and precise description has several consequences reflected in the linguistic characteristics of scientific texts: logical coherence, objectivity, impersonal statement of facts, clarity, brevity, authority.

 

Table 1

Linguistic characteristics	Examples
Logical coherence	«In fact, in 2030 most government-sponsored pension funds around the world follow a sustainable approach to investment, just like Rania’s does. That is to say, they integrate environmental…»
Objectivity	«Still in the year 2030, I’m taking you now to Ghana to visit Akua. Like 62 % of Ghanaian women in 2030, Akua has a savings account».
Impersonal statement of facts	«Sadly, I have to bring you back now to 7 October 2015. Despite the significant progress of recent years, we still have a long way to go. Today, there are still 2.5 billion adults and millions of small and medium sizedbusinesses…»
Clarity	«In 2030, Rania is one of the nearly 106 million people who make up Egypt’s population, and like 95 % of all employees in her country, Rania participates ina pension fund. This pension fund, like many others around the world, makesits investment decisions not just on the basis of financial imperatives».
Brevity	«These goals are key to reaching the two overarching ambitions. Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere, and Goal 2: End hunger, and achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture».
Authority	«I am sure that Rania from Egypt, Johannes from Germany and Akua from Ghana do not lack the commitment they will need to achieve their personal goals for 2030. I hope, and I trust, that you will leave Amsterdam with a commitment that matches theirs».

 

Linguistic features of scientific discourse:

We have analysed linguistic features of scientific discourse in the speech of Frank Elderson at the International Conference on Financial Inclusion. The results are the following:

 

Table 2

Lexical means
subject matter neutral vocabulary	«Financial inclusion is an important factor running through these, and is especially connected with Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education, and Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure».
the terms	«He can choose from mortgages with fixed or adjustable rates, government insured or conventional loans, or perhaps an interest-only jumbo loan». «…financial stability, imperatives, literacy, resources, infrastructure, needs, affairs, situation, eco-system, empowerment, crisis, strategies».
Grammatical means
sentences are mostly long with complex internal structure	«Now, some seven years after the global financial crisis erupted in 2008, policymakers have come to recognise that macroeconomic policies».
passive constructions (we come across)	«In fact, Akua was introduced to the basics of how money works at primary school».
Syntactical means
presence of quotations	«This coming year will be pivotal to our efforts to root financial inclusion into global development efforts. Discussions are well underway at the UN to frame a development agenda that will shape policy and action through 2030».
the penetration of a dialogue/dialogical features/represented speech	«Ladies and gentlemen, sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Have you ever thought about how hard it would be to use a payment terminal if you were blind or in a wheelchair?»

 

We have analysed some features of scientific style. We have defined the term scientific functional style in modern English. We have emphasized the style of scientific discourse. We have fixed the consequences in the linguistic characteristics of scientific discourse. We have developed, planned and realized scientific investigation.

The above mentioned features of scientific English tend to cluster together as characteristic of scientific discourse. They are not arbitrary but have evolved to meet the needs of scientific method, argument, experiments and theories. The internal formatting pattern such as Introduction, Method, Discussion and Result sections in scientific research articles is a recurrent phenomenon. The scientist, through this pattern, designs the conceptual framework of his research and organizes his research findings in coherent manner.

 

References:

 

1.                Bolshakova, E. I. Phraseological Database Extended by Educational Material for Learning Scientific Style. In: ACH/ALLC 2001: The 2001 Joint Int. Conference. Conf. Abstracts, Posters and Demonstrations, New York, 2001, p. 147–149.
2.                Ryabtseva, N. К. Mental Performatives in Scientific Discourse. Voprosyyazykoznaniya, V 4, 1992, p. 12–28 (in Russian).
3.                Stede, M., Umbach C. DiMLex: A Lexicon of Discourse Markers for Text Generation and Understanding. Proceedings of Int. Conf. On Computational Linguistics COLING-ACM’98, Vol. 2, 1998, p. 1238–1242.
4.                Kurohashi, S., Nagao M. Automatic Detection of Discourse Structure by Checking Surface Information in Sentences. In: COLING 94 Proceedings of the 15th Int. Conf. On Computational Linguistics. Vol. II, Kyoto, Japan, 1994, p. 1123–1127.
5.                Dictionary of Verb-Noun Combinations of the Common Scientific Speech. Nauka Publ., Moscow, 1973 (in Russian).