Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 14. Number 1 March 2023 Pp.137- 152
Using Ideological Conflict to Create Carcinogen Risk in Arabic Scientific Discourse: A
Huda H. Khalil
Department of English, College of Arts
University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Nassier A. G. Al-Zubaidi
Department of English, College of Arts
University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
Received:11/30/2022 Accepted:01/30/2023 Published: 03/24/2023
Many Arabic scientific debates are devoted to disputes on cancer and its causes. Scientists tend to inform people about the danger of consuming and being exposed to carcinogens. The paper aims to explore the proximization strategy that Arab scientists rely on to construct carcinogen risk to promote people’s preventive actions against carcinogens. The paper intends to answer the main question: how does the Arabic scientific discourse employ ideological conflict to construct carcinogen risk? It is hoped that the paper can provide insights into the linguistic construction of concepts through the ideological conflict between two different poles in the Arabic scientific discourse. It provides insights for Arab scientists by promoting their awareness of the potential of Arabic for presenting a fully intellectual reflection of scientific knowledge. It focuses on the construction of carcinogen risk that generates tension between the values held by people and the opposing values ascribed to carcinogens. This aim is achieved by employing Cap’s (2013) cognitive pragmatic theory of proximization. The theory comprises three proximization strategies: spatial, temporal and axiological. The axiological proximization strategy is applied to a corpus of Arabic scientific discourse. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used in the analysis to produce more objective results. Anthony’s AntConc (2019) corpus linguistics software is used for conducting mathematical calculations through corpus linguistics. The paper has arrived at some conclusions that show how axiological proximization is employed to construct carcinogen risk which encourages people to take preventive actions.
Keywords: AntConc, axiological proximization, carcinogen risk, cognitive pragmatics, ideological conflict,
proximization theory, scientific discourse
Cite as: Khalil, H.H.,& Al-Zubaidi, N. A. G. (2023). Using Ideological Conflict to Create Carcinogen Risk in Arabic Scientific Discourse: A Corpus-Based Study. Arab World English Journal, 14 (1)137-152.
Aajami, R. F. (2019). A Cognitive Linguistic Study of the English Preposition ‘in’. Journal of college of Education for Women, 30 (3), 49- 37.
Abbas, N. F. (2009). Politeness & Interaction in Goldsmith’s She Stoops to Conquer. Al-Ustath, 99, 385-417.
AntConcFileConverter (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Anthony, L. (2019). AntConc. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
Arafa M. A. ; Rabah D. M. & Farhat K. H. (2020). Rising Cancer Rates In the Arab World: Now Is the Time for Action. East Mediterr Health J. 26(6):638- 640. https://doi.org/10.26719/emhj.20.073
Cap, P. (2005). Language and Legitimization: Developments in the Proximization Model of Political Discourse Analysis. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 1, 7–36.
Cap, P. (2008). Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002
Cap, P. (2010). Axiological Aspects of Proximization. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 392–407.
Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cap, P. (2014). Extending CDS Methodology and Cognitive- Pragmatic Tools: Proximization Theory and Public Space Discourse. In C. Hart & P. Cap (Eds.) Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 189- 210). London: Bloomsbury.
Cap, P. (2017). The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cap, P. (2018). Spatial Cognition. In J. Flowerdew & J. Richardson (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 92–105). London: Routledge.
Cap, P. (2020). Representation, Conceptualization and Positioning in Critical Discourse Analysis. International Review of Pragmatics, 12, 272–294.
Carcinogen (2008). Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary. New Jersey: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Chilton, P. (2005). Discourse Space Theory: Geometry, Brain and Shifting Viewpoints. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 78–116.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, Space and Mind: The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallai, F. (2019). Cognitive Pragmatics and Translation Studies. In R. Tipton & L. Desilla (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Pragmatics (pp. 51- 72). London: Routledge.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). London: Academic Press.
Hanauer, D. I. (2006). Scientific Discourse Multiliteracy in the Classroom. London: Continuum.
Hao, J. (2020). Analysing Scientific Discourse from a Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective: A Framework for Exploring Knowledge-building in Biology. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Harris, R. A. (1997). Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hart, C. (2018). Cognitive Linguistic Critical Discourse Studies. In J. Flowerdew & J. Richardson (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp. 77–91). London: Routledge.
Jaafar, E. A. & Ganapathy, M. (2022). Investigating EFL Learners’ Ability to Analyse Poetic Language: A Pedagogical Corpus Stylistic Approach. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12 (5), 866-875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1205.06
Khalil, A. M. (1999). A Contrastive Grammar of English and Arabic. Amman: Jordan Book Center.
Khalil, H. H., & Al- Zubaidi, N. A. G. (2022). Constructing Carcinogen Risk in Scientific Discourse through Ideological Conflict: A Cognitive Pragmatic Analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(8), 1489-1499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1208.04
Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pohanish, R. P. (2002). Sittig’s Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Crcinigens. New York: William Andrew Publishing.
Prelli, L. J. (1989). A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Rasheed, N. J. (2020). English Language Classroom Conversation among Iraqi EFL Students: A Pragmatic Analysis. Asian EFL Journal, 2 (3.3), 131-149.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59- 82). London: Academic Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, W. (1985). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Wei, M. & Yu, G. (2019). On the Characteristics of Scientific Discourse and Translation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9 (8), 946-950. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0908.08
Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Harlow: Longman.
Yore, L. D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006). Written Discourse in Scientific Communities: A Conversation with Two Scientists about their Views of Science, Use of Language, Role of Writing in Doing Science and Compatibility between their Epistemic Views and Language. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2-3), 109-141. DOI. 10.1080/09500690500336601