1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interaction Studies
  4. Volume 22, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Science communication has gained high importance in the current knowledge and risk society. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of qualitative studies on how non-experts and experts engage in opinionated scientific debates and which linguistic devices they use to gain influence on other people’s attitudes toward a scientific issue.

In our study, we examine dialogical modes of science communication (i.e. weblogs) used by bloggers and audiences to engage into opinionated discourse about scientific endeavors. As those exchanges easily lead to controversies between different points of views, stances and attitudes, we focus from a rhetorically-driven linguistic perspective on devices to persuade the other participants and readers and to control the discourse. Hence, we ask which linguistic instruments are used to gain influence on influence. The aim of our study is to get deeper insights into the persuasive strategies mainly used in those forms of external science communication.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/is.00008.han
2022-03-28
2024-09-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/is.00008.han
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M., & Ladwig, P.
    (2014) The “Nasty Effect”: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (3), 373–387. 10.1111/jcc4.12009
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12009 [Google Scholar]
  2. Angler, M. W.
    (2020) Warum Bloggen?InJournalistische Praxis: Science Blogging. Eine praktische Anleitung (pp.1–5). Springer VS.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Betsch, C.
    (2020) How behavioural science data helps mitigate the COVID-19 crisis. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (5). 10.1038/s41562‑020‑0866‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0866-1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R.
    (2013) Narrative Persuasion. InJ. P. Dillard, & L. Shen, The SAGE handbook of persuasion. Developments in theory and practice (pp.200–219). Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bleumer, H., Hannken-Illjes, K., & Till, D.
    (2019) Narration – Persuasion – Argumentation. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 49, 1–28. 10.1007/s41244‑019‑00121‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41244-019-00121-7 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomber, M., & Schäfer, M. S.
    (Ed.) (2017) Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑12898‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brinker, K., Cölfen, H., & Pappert, S.
    (2014) Linguistische Textanalyse. Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden (Rev. ed.). Erich Schmidt Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chow, K. N.
    (2022) The Influence of Repeated Interactions on the Persuasiveness of Simulation: A Case Study on Smoking Reduction. Interaction Studies, in this volume.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, H. H.
    (1992) Arenas of language use. Chicago University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2007) Using Language. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Dieckmann, W., & Paul, I.
    (1983) „Aushandeln“ als Konzept der Konversationsanalyse. Eine wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Analyse. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 2, 169–196. 10.1515/ZFSW.1983.2.2.169
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFSW.1983.2.2.169 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eggs, E.
    (2000) Vertextungsmuster Argumentation. Logische Grundlagen. InK. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Vertextungsmuster Narration. InText- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1. Halbband (pp.397–414). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Ehlich, K.
    (2014) Argumentieren als sprachliche Ressource des diskursiven Lernens. InA. Hornung, G. Carobbio, & D. Sorrentino (Ed.), Diskursive und textuelle Strukturen in der Hochschuldidaktik. Deutsch und Italienisch im Vergleich (pp.41–54). Waxmann.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fischer, K., Jensen, L. C., & Zitzmann, N.
    (2022) In the same boat: The Influence of Sharing the Situational Context on a Speaker’s (a Robot’s) Persuasiveness. Interaction Studies, in this volume.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Fischer, L.
    (2012) Wissenschaftsblogs – Kulturraum mit eigenen Regeln. InB. Dernbach, C. Kleinert, & H. Münder (Ed.), Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp.259–266). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑18927‑7_35
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18927-7_35 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fix, U., Gardt, A., & Knape, J.
    (2008) Einleitung. InRhetorik und Stilistik. Ein internationales Handbuch historischer und systematischer Forschung (pp.v–xv). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Frankfurt, H. G.
    (2005) On bullshit. Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400826537
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826537 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fritz, G.
    (2020) Scientific controversies. InA. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp.311–334). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gardikiotis, A., & Crano, W. D.
    (2015) Persuasion theories. InInternational Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp.941–947). Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.24080‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.24080-4 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gottschling, M., & Kramer, O.
    (2021) Recontextualized Knowledge. Introduction: A Rhetorical View on Science Communication. InRecontextualized Knowledge. Rhetoric – Situation – Science Communication (pp.1–14). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grabe, M. E., & Ozen, B.
    (2021) Reconsidering Informed and Participatory Citizenship in the Current Media Ecosystem. InS. Coen, & P. Bull (Ed.), The Psychology of Journalism (pp.87–110). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780190935856.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190935856.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gülich, E., & Hausendorf, H.
    (2000) 37. Vertextungsmuster Narration. InK. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1. Halbband (pp.369–385). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Ham, J.
    (2022) Personalization of Persuasive Robots. Interaction Studies, in this volume.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Hamimid, A.
    (2015) The argumentative triology: Ethos, Pathos, Logos. Looking into how to persuade. Revue des Sciences Humaines, 43, 45–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hanauska, M., & Leßmöllmann, A.
    (2018) 15. Dialogizität im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. InK. Birkner, & N. Janich (Ed.), Handbuch Text und Gespräch (372–397). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110296051‑015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110296051-015 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hart Sol, P., & Nisbet, E. C.
    (2011) Boomerang Effects in Science Communication. How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. Communication Research39, 701–723. 10.1177/0093650211416646
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heinemann, W.
    (2000) Textsorte – Textmuster – Texttyp. InText- und Gesprächslinguistik. InK. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1. Halbband (pp.507–523). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R.
    (2015) Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory. PLoS One, 10 (10). 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hennig, A., & Kohler, S.
    (2020) Einflussfaktoren bei der Social-Media-Nutzung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Publizistik, 65, 593–615. 10.1007/s11616‑020‑00618‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-020-00618-z [Google Scholar]
  30. Hornsey, M. J.
    (2020) Why Facts Are Not Enough. Understanding and Managing the Motivated Rejection of Science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29, 583–591. 10.1177/0963721420969364
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420969364 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jackob, N.
    (2007) Die aristotelische Rhetorik als Theorie persuasiver Kommunikation – Zur kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Kontinuität zwischen antiker und moderner Persuasionsforschung. InT. Roessing (Ed.), Politik und Kommunikation – interdisziplinär betrachtet (pp.117–142). Nomos. 10.5771/9783845201788‑117
     https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845201788-117 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jahr, S.
    (2000) 38. Vertextungsmuster Explikation. InK. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1. Halbband (pp.385–397). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Jarreau, P.
    (2015) All the Science That Is Fit to Blog. An Analysis of Science Blogging Practices. Dissertation. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
  34. José Luzón, M.
    (2012) Comments in Academic Blogs as a New Form of Scholarly Interaction. InC. Berkenkotter, V. K. Bhatia, & M. Gotti (Ed.) Insights into Academic Genres (pp.281–300). Peter Lang CH.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kahan, D. M.
    (2013) Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. An Experimental Study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kallmeyer, W.
    (1981) Aushandlung und Bedeutungskonstitution. InP. Schröder, & H. Steger (Ed.), Dialogforschung. Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp.89–127). Schwann.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kienpointner, M.
    (1992) Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Frommann-Holzboog.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Knape, J.
    (1998) Zwangloser Zwang. Der Persuasionsprozeß als Grundlage sozialer Bindung. InG. Ueding, & T. Vogel, Von der Kunst der Rede und Beredsamkeit (pp.54–69). Attempto.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. (2013) Persuasion. InG. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik Online (pp.874–907). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kosta, P.
    (1995) Zur Modellierung persuasiver Sprechakte. InZeitschrift für Slawistik, 40, 3, 305–324. 10.1524/slaw.1995.40.3.305
     https://doi.org/10.1524/slaw.1995.40.3.305 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kramer, O.
    (2020) Spiel mit dem Publikum. Zur Rhetorik des Science-Slams. InP. Niemann, L. Bittner, C. Hauser, & P. Schrögel (Ed.), Science-Slam. Multidisziplinäre Perspektiven auf eine populäre Form der Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp.53–67). Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑28861‑7_5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28861-7_5 [Google Scholar]
  42. Langedijk, R., & Ham, J.
    (2022) More Than Advice: The Influence of Adding References to Prior Discourse and Signals of Empathy on the Persuasiveness of an Advice-Giving Robot. Interaction Studies, in this volume.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Latour, B.
    (2004) Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. InCritical Inquiry, 30 (2), 225–248. 10.1086/421123
     https://doi.org/10.1086/421123 [Google Scholar]
  44. Leßmöllmann, A.
    (2020) Current trends and future visions of (research on) science communication. InA. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp.657–688). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lobin, H.
    (2017) Aktuelle und künftige technische Rahmenbedingungen digitaler Medien für die Wissenschaftskommunikation. InP. Wingart, H. Wormer, A. Wenninger, R. F. Hüttl (Ed.), Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter (pp.221–258). Velbrück Wissenschaft. 10.5771/9783748926672‑221
     https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748926672-221 [Google Scholar]
  46. Luong, K. T., Garrett, R. K., & Slater, M. D.
    (2019) Promoting Persuasion With Ideologically Tailored Science Messages. A Novel Approach to Research on Emphasis Framing. Science Communication, 41 (4), 488–515. 10.1177/1075547019862559
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019862559 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lüthje, C.
    (2017) Interne informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation. InH. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomber, M. S. Schäfer (Ed.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp.109–124). Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑12898‑2_6
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12898-2_6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C.
    (2014) Science blogging: an exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13 (3), 1–17. 10.22323/2.13030205
     https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030205 [Google Scholar]
  49. Martin, J. S., Summerville, A., & Wickline, V. B.
    (2017) Persuasion and Pragmatics. An Empirical Test of the Guru Effect Model. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8 (2), 219–234. 10.1007/s13164‑016‑0317‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-016-0317-0 [Google Scholar]
  50. Meiler, M.
    (2018) Eristisches Handeln in wissenschaftlichen Weblogs. Medienlinguistische Grundlagen und Analysen. Synchron.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Mills, G. Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Chris Howes, and Vladislav Maraev
    (2022) Influencing laughter with AI mediated communication. Interaction Studies, in this volume. 10.31234/osf.io/ysf7v
     https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ysf7v [Google Scholar]
  52. Mouchel, C., Fortenbaugh, W., & Robling, F.
    (2013) Ethos. . InG. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik Online (pp.1516–1543). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Niebuhr, O., & Silber-Varod, V.
    (2022) How versatility performance influences perception of charismatic speech – A study on two Israeli politicians. Interaction Studies, in this volume.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M.
    (2003) ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41 (3), 179–194. 10.1023/A:1025505528250
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025505528250 [Google Scholar]
  55. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M.
    (2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Ortak, N.
    (2004) Persuasion. Zur textlinguistischen Beschreibung eines dialogischen Strategiemusters. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110933246
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110933246 [Google Scholar]
  57. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
    (1986) The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. 10.1016/S0065‑2601(08)60214‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 [Google Scholar]
  58. Priest, S.
    (2019) Theme Issue. Communication and Persuasion on Energy, Environment, and Climate. InScience Communication, 41 (4), 391–393. 10.1177/1075547019864178
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019864178 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rex, B. T.
    (2008) Persuasion. Die Kunst der Überzeugung. InV. Bazil, & R. Wöller (Ed.), Rede als Führungsinstrument. Wirtschaftsrhetorik für Manager – ein Leitfaden (pp.141–156). Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler / GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden. 10.1007/978‑3‑8349‑9734‑0_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9734-0_9 [Google Scholar]
  60. Schäfer, M. S., & Metag, J.
    (2021) Audiences of science communication between pluralization, fragmentation and polarization. InM. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication about Science and Technology. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003039242‑16‑15
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039242-16-15 [Google Scholar]
  61. Schmid-Petri, H., & Bürger, M.
    (2020) 5. Modeling science communication. From linear to more complex models. InA. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp.105–122). De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Schönbach, K.
    (2016) Verkaufen, Flirten, Führen. Persuasive Kommunikation – ein Überblick (Rev.ed.). Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑11478‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11478-7 [Google Scholar]
  63. Sperber, D.
    (2010) The Guru Effect. InReview of Philosophy and Psychology, 1 (4), 583–592. 10.1007/s13164‑010‑0025‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-010-0025-0 [Google Scholar]
  64. Toulmin, S.
    (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Wenninger, A.
    (2019) Digitale Grenzkämpfe der Wissenschaft. Boundary-Work am Beispiel eines Blogportals. Springer VS. 10.1007/978‑3‑658‑25298‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25298-4 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/is.00008.han
Loading
Persuasion in science communication
Interaction Studies 22, 343 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00008.han
/content/journals/10.1075/is.00008.han
/content/journals/10.1075/is.00008.han
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dialogue analysis; ethos; logos; pathos; persuasion; rhetoric; science blogposts; science communication

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error