{"title":"自反性见证:波义耳、皇家学会与科学风格","authors":"A. Hogarth, Michael Witmore","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2018.0051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article uses quantitative methods to analyse the language of Royal Society prose. Historians of science such as Barbara Shapiro have argued that specific linguistic features are detectable in the Royal Society's experimental reports, including first-person reporting and expressions of modesty. Moreover, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer's influential study of Royal Society writing suggests that such linguistic strategies are designed to establish trust in the reporter and enable readers to become ‘virtual witnesses’ to experimental activities. While previous scholarship has persuasively identified distinct modes of rhetorical appeal in Royal Society texts, our corpus-based linguistic approach offers a more fine-grained description of the rhetoric of modesty and witnessing identified by other scholars. Our analysis further suggests that Royal Society writers had a self-reflexive and temporally complex relationship with the process of inquiry that is not fully captured by these qualitative studies; we call this linguistic structure ‘reflexive witnessing’. Having defined that structure linguistically and surveyed it across a broader range of early modern texts, we demonstrate that ‘reflexive witnessing’ was not exclusive to the community of the Royal Society.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0051","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reflexive witnessing: Boyle, the Royal Society and scientific style\",\"authors\":\"A. Hogarth, Michael Witmore\",\"doi\":\"10.1098/rsnr.2018.0051\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article uses quantitative methods to analyse the language of Royal Society prose. Historians of science such as Barbara Shapiro have argued that specific linguistic features are detectable in the Royal Society's experimental reports, including first-person reporting and expressions of modesty. Moreover, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer's influential study of Royal Society writing suggests that such linguistic strategies are designed to establish trust in the reporter and enable readers to become ‘virtual witnesses’ to experimental activities. While previous scholarship has persuasively identified distinct modes of rhetorical appeal in Royal Society texts, our corpus-based linguistic approach offers a more fine-grained description of the rhetoric of modesty and witnessing identified by other scholars. Our analysis further suggests that Royal Society writers had a self-reflexive and temporally complex relationship with the process of inquiry that is not fully captured by these qualitative studies; we call this linguistic structure ‘reflexive witnessing’. Having defined that structure linguistically and surveyed it across a broader range of early modern texts, we demonstrate that ‘reflexive witnessing’ was not exclusive to the community of the Royal Society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0051\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0051\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0051","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reflexive witnessing: Boyle, the Royal Society and scientific style
This article uses quantitative methods to analyse the language of Royal Society prose. Historians of science such as Barbara Shapiro have argued that specific linguistic features are detectable in the Royal Society's experimental reports, including first-person reporting and expressions of modesty. Moreover, Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer's influential study of Royal Society writing suggests that such linguistic strategies are designed to establish trust in the reporter and enable readers to become ‘virtual witnesses’ to experimental activities. While previous scholarship has persuasively identified distinct modes of rhetorical appeal in Royal Society texts, our corpus-based linguistic approach offers a more fine-grained description of the rhetoric of modesty and witnessing identified by other scholars. Our analysis further suggests that Royal Society writers had a self-reflexive and temporally complex relationship with the process of inquiry that is not fully captured by these qualitative studies; we call this linguistic structure ‘reflexive witnessing’. Having defined that structure linguistically and surveyed it across a broader range of early modern texts, we demonstrate that ‘reflexive witnessing’ was not exclusive to the community of the Royal Society.
期刊介绍:
Notes and Records is an international journal which publishes original research in the history of science, technology and medicine.
In addition to publishing peer-reviewed research articles in all areas of the history of science, technology and medicine, Notes and Records welcomes other forms of contribution including: research notes elucidating recent archival discoveries (in the collections of the Royal Society and elsewhere); news of research projects and online and other resources of interest to historians; essay reviews, on material relating primarily to the history of the Royal Society; and recollections or autobiographical accounts written by Fellows and others recording important moments in science from the recent past.