1887
Volume 16, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Intelligent design is a pseudoscientific concept conceived in an attempt to bring religion-based teaching into the classroom. As such, it is involved in a constant struggle for dialogic space with the dominant scientific discourse of the theory of evolution. Here, we use a corpus linguistic approach to study how intelligent design discourse uses engagement to forward its creationistic propositions and at the same time limit the propositions of the theory of evolution. The results suggest that intelligent design discourse employs engagement far more frequently than evolutionary biology discourse, mainly to counter opposing propositions and to entertain its own proposition in their stead. The underdog position of ID obligates it to highly modulated engagement in order forward its position, which is ultimately aimed at changing the political decision-making related to the teaching of science.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.16013.wil
2017-06-12
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, Laurence
    2014 AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available: www.laurenceanthony.net/
  2. Back, Juhyn
    2015 “A Corpus-based Study of Interactional Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 Academic Research Articles: Writer Identity and Reader Engagement.” Corpus Linguistics 2015: abstract book. UCREL, Lancaster.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Paul
    2006Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London, New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Behe, Michael
    2007The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benen, Steven
  6. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1993The Field of Cultural Production. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Carroll, Sean B.
    2007 “Evolution: God as genetic engineer.” Science316: 1427–1428. doi: 10.1126/science.1145104
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1145104 [Google Scholar]
  8. Charles, Maggie
    2009 “Stance, interaction and the rhetorical patterns of restrictive adverbs: Discourse roles of only, just, simply and merely.” InAcademic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse, ed. by Maggie Charles , Susan Hunston and Diane Pecorari , 152–169. London: Continuum International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Charles, Maggie , Hunston, Susan , and Pecorari, Diane
    (eds) 2009Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. London: Continuum International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chatterjee-Padmanabhan, Meeta
    2014 “Bakhtin’s theory of heteroglossia/intertextuality in teaching academic writing in higher education.” Journal of Academic Language and Learning: 101–A112.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chilton, Paul A. , and Schäffner Christina
    (eds) 2002Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4 [Google Scholar]
  12. Coulthard, Malcolm
    (ed.) 1994Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203422656
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203422656 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dawkins, Richard
    2009The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Derewianka, Beverly
    2007 “Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent student writing.” InAdvances in language & education, ed. by Anne McCabe , Mick O’Donnell and Rachel Whittaker , 142–165. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gee, James P.
    1999An Introduction to discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Forrest, Barbara
    2001 “The wedge at work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream.” InIntelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. ed. Robert T. Pennock , 5–53. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood , and Matthiessen, Christian Matthias Ingemar Martin
    2014Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.) London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hyland, Ken
    2009 “Corpus informed discourse analysis: The case of academic engagement.” InAcademic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse, ed. by Maggie Charles , Susan Hunston and Diane Pecorari , 110–128. London: Continuum International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Memorandum Opinion 2004.” Accessed12 January 2015. https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file577_ 23137.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin, James Robert , and White, Peter R. R.
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  21. McCabe, Anne , O’Donnell, Mick , and Whittaker Rachel
    (eds) 2007Advances in language and education. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller, Kenneth R.
    1996 “Darwin’s Black Box, reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller.” Creation/Evolution16: 36–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Muntigl, Peter
    2002 “Politicization and depoliticization: employment policy on the European Union.” InPolitics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed. by Paul A. Chilton and Christina Schäffner , 45–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins doi: 10.1075/dapsac.4.05mun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.4.05mun [Google Scholar]
  24. Myers, Greg
    1989 “The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles.” Applied Linguistics10: 1–35. doi: 10.1093/applin/10.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pagano, Adriana
    1994 “Negatives in written text.” InAdvances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard , 250–65. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Palonen, Kari
    2003 “Four times of politics: Policy, polity, politicking, and politization.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political28 (2): 171–186. doi: 10.1177/030437540302800202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540302800202 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pennock, Robert T.
    (ed.) 2001Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rayson, Paul , and Garside, Roger
    2000 Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. Inproceedings of the workshop on Comparing Corpora, held in conjunction with the 38th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 1–8October 2000, Hong Kong, pp.1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tang, Ramona
    2009 “A dialogic account of authority in academic writing.” InAcademic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse, ed. by Maggie Charles , Susan Hunston and Diane Pecorari , 170–88. London: Continuum International Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Thomson, Irene Taviss
    2010Culture Wars and Enduring American Dilemmas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. doi: 10.3998/mpub.1571326
    https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.1571326 [Google Scholar]
  31. Swain, Elizabeth
    2007 “Constructing an effective voice in academic discussion writing: An appraisal theory perspective.” InAdvances in language & education, ed. by Anne McCabe , Mick O’Donnell and Rachel Whittaker , 166–184. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Young, Matt , and Edis, Taner
    (eds) 2004Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, 1–9. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.16013.wil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.16013.wil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics , engagement , intelligent design , politics , pseudoscience and scientific discourse
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