The Language of Popular Science

Popularization of science involves translation of various scientific works in a way that allows their access and comprehension by the wider section of society. In this case, authors take up the role of interpreting scientific materials and providing them to the wider section of society in terms of books, journals and other media. Essentially, a certain language must be used during the process of translation. This is what is termed as the language of popular science as it is unique from others since it involves the scientific discourse.

There are several emergent issues in the language of popular science, which include; translation and language used in popular science, dominant views in popular science, relationship between popular science and other sciences, notions behind translation of the language and the process of popularizing the discourse. On the same, various difficulties arise during the process of popularizing science and resolving challenges encountered.

To start with, various dominant views that dictate how translation of popular science needs to proceed complicate the popularization process. These views show how society materials are debased to the public (Schuster, 2012). Firstly, the public is perceived as being ignorant of some matters. Thus, popularization of science takes a one-way process where the existing knowledge is simplified (Dawkins, 2008). However, no well-defined boundaries exist on the scientific discourse and the extent to which its genres need popularization. Some actors need to be considered such as the authors and target audience and the interactions developed during the discourse, modes involved and the content of communication (Myers, 2003). Secondly, the main feature in popular science is that it entails texts about science that are well interpreted by other specialists. They assume that the texts being addressed have more value to the target audience that helps to mitigate the scientific discourse (Southwell et al., 2006). Thirdly, translation of scientific texts is a one-way process. The authors normally write the books and translate them in the way they believe their target audience will be satisfied. This implies that whatever the experts write, the audiences have to believe, since such majorities are ignorant or not in a position to question or criticize the work of the experts. Such one-way process deprives the audience from participating in the process to offer meaningful insight.

Essentially, professional science entails advancement of knowledge following a particular course of thinking and behavior. Professional and popular science are related in that professional science aims at advancing knowledge, while popular science aims at making that particular knowledge available and understood by a larger segment of society (Fahnestock, 2006). However, professional science stresses on the method used in making the conclusion and places emphasis on the end of the text, while popular science focuses on news and their importance. Stress is normally placed at the beginning of the text.

Pedagogic science is also related to popular science. Pedagogic science involves developing the understanding of the learners making it easy for them to understand methods and concepts as well as changing their ways of thinking (Fuller, 1998). Such an aim of pedagogic science is similar to the aim of popular science to change society’s perspective about a topic. The only difference between popular science and pedagogic science is that popular science focuses on non-scientists while pedagogic focuses on the learners.

Generally, most of popular science texts are derived from linguists who aim at improving languages for academic purposes. This way, they are able to relate scientific discourses with other academic areas. In this respect, science is normally viewed as a discourse and its popularization as a genre. These views are supported by various assumptions that are used in translation of scientific materials (Fahnestock, 2006). Firstly, scientists and the scientific institutions determine what constitutes science and, hence, the audience does not influence the literature that develops from such scientific endeavors (Dawkins, 2008). Secondly, scientists take the advantage of the ignorance of the public and, thus, write on various scientific topics; the knowledge being translated only travels in one direction, from scientific community to society (Dawkins, 2008). On the same, science entails only information that is contained in a series of written scientific statements. Finally, the process of translating one discourse to the other does not change the information but only the textual form in that it is further simplified. Nevertheless, individuals may distort or exaggerate such a process to suit their specific purposes (Myers, 2003). Despite the dominant view of popularization, the assumptions show that there is a possibility of various flaws arising during the translation process. This arises since the translation process is perceived from a scientific angle by the institutions that constitute the science itself (Wynne, 2001). As a result, this view is prominent among the authors and their institutions. Virtually, science is identified as a discourse wile popularization is referred to as a genre. Following this assumption, there are certain texts that can be used to stand for popular science. Some of these texts include the Scientific American and other print media such as newspapers and transcripts of documentaries aired on television.

The notions of popular science are involved in our everyday life. This is evident in the language that we use. The language used in popular science may become problematic, at times. This necessitates the need for translation, which involves negotiating and bridging two or more distinct registers. Registers entail specific ways of speaking which may be defined socially or historical (Fahnestock, 2006). Popular science also entails the process of re-contextualization, which involves repacking the writings in order to fit the discursive of either social or political contexts (Dawkins, 2008). Therefore, rhetorical strategies among other discursive interests are used to make popular writings easy to understand. When scientific works have been popularized, they have a big difference in comparison with other works such as science journalism (Myers, 2003). Some works such as new scientist and scientific fiction are developed as a way to accommodate the already existing sciences. They tend to be more explicit on various scientific values as they do not give it more attention as is the case for popular science.

Normally, translation of popular science relies on target audience who are expected to appreciate and recognize the essence of the information written. This implies that popularizing science only requires adjustments of the already existing information (Pfitzer, 2008). However, such popularization plays an important role in influencing the values and assumptions already held by the audience. Generally, science journalism entails accommodation of various ideas and translations, used to reinforce the technocratic ideology, based on the argument that science is good for people (Southwell et al, 2006). Science journalism also justifies the role of science in improving our lives by facilitating inventions of modern world, facilitating such advancements as interpretations of an array of diseases. Popular scientists are also referred to as essayist who do not sit comfortably and rely on what the reader says. Rather, they have to interpret various models and categorize them to come up with more comprehensive work.

Linguists rarely care to reveal the source, the timeframe and the methodology used in collating the information discovered. Rather, they insist on trust, as they believe that their audience believes that they know what they are trying to communicate (Pfitzer, 2008). Therefore, the audiences do not need any evidence to believe them. In addition, language influences people’s perception of the world, greatly. On the other hand, gender influences the way popular science is translated. Thus, aspects of gender also affect our use of language. Notably, gender has varied uses based on our attitudes. Some of these attitudes are based on literature and poetry descriptions of gender (Myers, 2003). The richness of language and symbolism used to describe gender will result in differing interpretations (Wynne, 2001). This may result in irrational gender system. Generally, science requires continuous cultivation. It involves wonders and applications that appeals to the values that define the human history (Southwell et al., 2006). It also motivates accommodations of popular science in various contexts. Thus, the perception towards the influence of gender on scientific work has continued to change over time.

Popular science is cultivated through application of linguists who seek to improve the teaching of various languages with the aim of propagating the academic process. This implies that other discourses are related with the scientific discourse using a particular language (Myers, 2003). Conversely, the science of communication, which mainly involves journals and other special media, also influences how scientific discourse and the language being used develop (Pfitzer, 2008). Some researchers have tended to question the boundaries assumed by popular science. Sometimes, it is hard to separate scientific discourse with other forms of discourse, due to their similarities. Therefore, whether the discourse is within the scientific institution or outside, there is no distinct boundary that can be used to separate them (Southwell et al., 2006). Moreover, the information being translated from one discourse to the other cannot also be separated.

Increased mutual incomprehensibility between popular science and various disciplines has been a major hindrance in the process of translation. This is due to increased cultural orientations and preoccupations. Moreover, the differences in epistemic modes that are manifested in our societies contribute to such incomprehensibility (Fuller, 1998). The resultant effect is that science has become inaccessible due to popularization and prefiguring of various values. Snow also noted the fractured or disintegration in the modern social life which is an indication of how the disciplines can have negative effect on society (Pfitzer, 2008). Popular science has been buried under the perception that knowledge is being disseminated. The rhetoric of disseminating knowledge and plain English has reduced the value of popular science since it has been relegated to initiating dialogue only among the elites.

In the process of popularizing science, various assumptions exist. For instance, scientific discourse and popularization as a genre comprises assumptions describing how texts should be studied. Therefore, there are set of texts that could be identified as being in the category of popular science such as the articles in the Scientific American, books on cosmology, various reports on newspapers, and other documentaries on television (Schechter et al., 2000). These materials can also be compared to other scientific journals in the field of popular science. However, as explained earlier, translations of popular science results in some changes especially in grammatical voice, the choice of verbs, subjects used in sentences, and rhetorical structure (Fuller, 1998). The changes are related to the scientific institutions especially in their application in teaching, creating awareness to the public and translation. Accordingly, a linear nature in diffusion of language exists in popularization of science and some of the basic assumptions that supports popularization.

The main challenge of popular science involves translations of various terms. Majority of science authors states that the main problem involves the referential content that is involved in science subjects. They argue that science contents contain characteristics of various forbidding norms that make it hard for them to translate such terms (Myers, 2003). Some of these norms in academic science include; nominalization, technical lexis, complex mathematical equations and some causality that are highly embedded. Some scientific books detailing information on the early universe can be described as either good or bad (Fahnestock, 2006). This is simply because they have information that is not easily translated especially the writing on cosmology. Indeed, science authors have only been able to translate these writing using equations. On the other hand, Richard Dawkins stipulates that some jargons have to be deleted in order to enable a nonprofessional who has no special knowledge in these subjects to understand them (Fahnestock, 2006).

The following are the solutions to the problems experienced in popularization of science. Firstly, science should be viewed not only as a discourse involving a single set of social practices, based on a single entity, but also as a way to create order in the discourse. This can be done through creating a terrain of competing discourses and practices (Fuller, 1998). Secondly, some of the basic assumptions of popularization need revision. This will limit the number of questions that have evolved relating to the credibility of some of the assumptions. For example, the assumption that translation of scientific texts is a one-way process has received substantial criticism that necessitates its revision (Fuller, 1998). Thirdly, popular science should be a discourse that creates order by relating various discourses and practices, but not taking advantage of the ignorant state of the public. The creation of genres should not be based on the scientific institutions that do not consider interactions between the public and the authors important (Schechter et al., 2000). Fourthly, the translation of the popular science should limit the extent to which the resulting texts are biased or changed. This helps to maintain the relationship between the texts despite the creation of new writings. Lastly, a narrowing of the distance between the expert and the nonprofessional is needed. As earlier stated, a vast gap exists between the two where none of them needs the assistance of the other (Fuller, 1998). This is exemplified by the observation that scientific academic books are written and released to the public arena without the provision of an avenue for feedback from the readers (Dawkins, 2008). Professors and experts have written books based on their interpretations without allowing or seeking assistance from the members of the public. This creates a distinction between the two actors making the gap much wider.

Establish the extent to which authors and the audience need to interact in order to produce works that accommodate the views of both may prove challenging (Fuller, 1998). However, based on the assumption that there are no interactions between the expert and the non-professionals in developing some of the texts, a link must be found to increase the level of such interaction (Wynne, 2001). However, majority of the written texts do not involve the participation of the nonprofessionals as it involves a one-way process and transfer of information. To some extent, there are interactions between scientists and the intermediaries. Some scholars argue that popularization of science is cyclical rather that linear (Wynne, 2001). This is because it involves both communicative and cognitive dimensions that do not arise from the ignorant state of the public. Accordingly, credible institutions need to participate in the translation of scientific texts to avoid transfer of incorrect or biased information to the public (Fahnestock, 2006). On the same, only the well-constructed and evaluated information in the written texts should be accessible to the public. Indeed, popularization has opened questions on what should be written and what should be withheld.

In conclusion, it is evident that popular science cannot operate in isolation. Other sciences such as professional and pedagogic sciences complement popular science. Moreover, it is highly influenced by linguists who are normally involved in translation. The most pronounced view is that which considers science as a discourse and popularization as a genre. This gives popular science a greater meaning in terms of its translation and delivery. It is also evident that the work translated does not involve the views of the audience, since writing or translating scientific works mainly encompasses authors and their institutions only. This results in wide gap between the expert and the public due to lack of interaction. Similarly, due to advancement in technology, the internet has become a major avenue through which the public can access the translated information. This implies that authors can take advantage of unsuspecting audience to produce incorrect information, an implication that calls for actions from the concerned institutions and individuals, to cross check scholarly materials posted online, to ensure their authenticity. Popular science should seek to illustrate and attract readers on a just course just as professional science seeks to improve the course of an argument.

References

Dawkins, R. (2008). The Oxford book of modern science writing. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. p. 179.

Fuller, G. (1998). Cultivating Science: Negotiating discourse in the popular texts of Stephen Jay Gould. In J. R. Martin and R. Veel (eds) Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science, pp. 35-62. London: Routledge.
Fahnestock, J. (2006). Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. The Literature of Science, pp 17-36

Myers, G. (2003). Discourse studies of scientific popularization: Questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies. 5(2) 265–279.

Pfitzer, M. (2008), Popular History and the Literary Marketplace, 1840-1920, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Schechter, B. et al., (2000). My Brain is Open: The Mathematical Journeys of Paul Erdos. Simon & Schuster. V. (2012). Where are the missing masses? The Quasi-publics and Non-publics of Technoscience, Minerva, 50 (2), 239-254

Southwell, B. et al. (2006). Connecting interpersonal and mass communication: Science news exposure, perceived ability to understand science, and conversation. Communication Monographs, 73(3), 334-350.

Wynne, B. (2001). Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs’, Science as Culture 10, 445–81.