学科交叉中的知识建构——后人道主义话语中对动物知识主张的评价

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Agata Rozumko
{"title":"学科交叉中的知识建构——后人道主义话语中对动物知识主张的评价","authors":"Agata Rozumko","doi":"10.4467/20834624sl.23.003.17263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The discursive practices of individual academic disciplines differ in many ways, which is why numerous studies of academic discourse adopt cross-disciplinary perspectives to explore the character and extent of those differences. Less attention has, however, been given to interdisciplinary discourses which incorporate the findings and/or research methods from a number of disciplines. This paper focuses on the discourse of one of the new critical interdisciplinarities: posthumanism. More specifically, it examines how posthumanist discourse integrates knowledge produced by the soft and hard sciences (as well as other sources) to build its perspective on animals and their relations with humans. Using Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework to study knowledge claims collected from selected scholarly monographs adopting a posthumanist perspective, this study demonstrates that posthumanist claims referring to biological knowledge and experiential evidence tend to contain neutral, positive and endorsing formulations, while the knowledge from the soft sciences is reported in more critical ways, which is consistent with the aims of critical interdisciplinarities, i.e. questioning and transforming the dominant knowledge structure within different disciplines. Additionally, this paper provides evidence of the importance of popular science within interdisciplinary research in the humanities. It also sheds some light on the rhetorical practices within the scholarly monograph as a genre, particularly concerning the relative flexibility of its discursive conventions in comparison with those expected from a research article.","PeriodicalId":38769,"journal":{"name":"Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constructing knowledge at the intersection of disciplines: appraisal in knowledge claims concerning animals in posthumanist discourse\",\"authors\":\"Agata Rozumko\",\"doi\":\"10.4467/20834624sl.23.003.17263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The discursive practices of individual academic disciplines differ in many ways, which is why numerous studies of academic discourse adopt cross-disciplinary perspectives to explore the character and extent of those differences. Less attention has, however, been given to interdisciplinary discourses which incorporate the findings and/or research methods from a number of disciplines. This paper focuses on the discourse of one of the new critical interdisciplinarities: posthumanism. More specifically, it examines how posthumanist discourse integrates knowledge produced by the soft and hard sciences (as well as other sources) to build its perspective on animals and their relations with humans. Using Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework to study knowledge claims collected from selected scholarly monographs adopting a posthumanist perspective, this study demonstrates that posthumanist claims referring to biological knowledge and experiential evidence tend to contain neutral, positive and endorsing formulations, while the knowledge from the soft sciences is reported in more critical ways, which is consistent with the aims of critical interdisciplinarities, i.e. questioning and transforming the dominant knowledge structure within different disciplines. Additionally, this paper provides evidence of the importance of popular science within interdisciplinary research in the humanities. It also sheds some light on the rhetorical practices within the scholarly monograph as a genre, particularly concerning the relative flexibility of its discursive conventions in comparison with those expected from a research article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624sl.23.003.17263\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624sl.23.003.17263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

各个学术学科的话语实践在很多方面都有所不同,这就是为什么许多学术话语研究都采用跨学科的视角来探索这些差异的特征和程度。然而,对跨学科话语的关注较少,这些话语融合了许多学科的发现和/或研究方法。本文着重讨论一个新的批判性跨学科的话语:后人文主义。更具体地说,它考察了后人文主义话语如何整合软科学和硬科学(以及其他来源)产生的知识,以建立其对动物及其与人类关系的看法。使用Martin和White(2005)的评估框架,从后人文主义的角度研究从选定的学术专著中收集的知识主张,本研究表明,提及生物知识和经验证据的后人文主义主张往往包含中立、积极和认可的表述,而软科学的知识以更批判性的方式报道,这与批判性跨学科的目的一致,即质疑和转换不同学科内的主导知识结构。此外,本文还证明了科普在人文学科跨学科研究中的重要性。它还揭示了学术专著中作为一种体裁的修辞实践,特别是与研究文章中预期的相比,其话语惯例的相对灵活性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constructing knowledge at the intersection of disciplines: appraisal in knowledge claims concerning animals in posthumanist discourse
The discursive practices of individual academic disciplines differ in many ways, which is why numerous studies of academic discourse adopt cross-disciplinary perspectives to explore the character and extent of those differences. Less attention has, however, been given to interdisciplinary discourses which incorporate the findings and/or research methods from a number of disciplines. This paper focuses on the discourse of one of the new critical interdisciplinarities: posthumanism. More specifically, it examines how posthumanist discourse integrates knowledge produced by the soft and hard sciences (as well as other sources) to build its perspective on animals and their relations with humans. Using Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal framework to study knowledge claims collected from selected scholarly monographs adopting a posthumanist perspective, this study demonstrates that posthumanist claims referring to biological knowledge and experiential evidence tend to contain neutral, positive and endorsing formulations, while the knowledge from the soft sciences is reported in more critical ways, which is consistent with the aims of critical interdisciplinarities, i.e. questioning and transforming the dominant knowledge structure within different disciplines. Additionally, this paper provides evidence of the importance of popular science within interdisciplinary research in the humanities. It also sheds some light on the rhetorical practices within the scholarly monograph as a genre, particularly concerning the relative flexibility of its discursive conventions in comparison with those expected from a research article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis
Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: SLing publishes original research papers in all linguistic disciplines. The primary objective of our journal is to offer an opportunity to publish academic papers and reviews to the scholars employed by the Faculty of Philology of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, however, academics from all over the world are kindly invited to publish in our periodical as well. We accept papers both theoretically- and descriptively-oriented.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信