Both genders are nowadays firmly established in all domains of the sciences and women’s writings are on a par with the writings of male scientists in terms of coverage and acceptance in their respective communities and publishing venues. Well-known female scientists such as the British natural philosopher Margaret Cavendish in the early modern science of the 17th c. or the British-German astronomer Caroline Herschel (18th c.) bear witness that women have for a long time been actively engaged in science. The number of female scientists has since increased exponentially such that in 20th and 21st century science, female scientists are represented in all domains of science and science writing. However, the role of women as scientists and disseminators of scientific endeavors are a neglected aspect in the history of science and science writing.
This seminar is concerned with science writing in a historical perspective. It pursues the question of whether gender-specific differences between male and female science writing can be identified in science writing present and past. We are initially going to survey the historical development of science writing in terms of the fields and topics covered and the organs of publication represented at different stages in science writing before we turn to specific linguistic properties of science writing and potential gender differences. Based on a corpus of texts by authors representing the genders, we are going to explore the question whether specific editorial and linguistic properties can be identified in gender specific science writing.
In the course of the seminar, we are going to explore the utility of linguistic studies of register and genre for the identification of linguistic and gender-specific features of registers of science. We are going to explore data-driven methods of text analysis covering lexico-grammatical register features according to Biber et al. (2001), features of stance (Hunston 2010) and discourse organization as well as questions of genre attribution and publishing practices.
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. 1998. Corpus Linguistics. Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: CUP.
Conrad, Susan and Douglas Biber. 2001. Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. London: Longman.
Gardiner, Judith Kegan. “On Female Identity and Writing by Women.” Critical Inquiry. Vol. 8, No. 2, Writing and Sexual Difference (Winter, 1981), pp. 347-361.
Gates, Barbara T. and Ann B. Shteir. 1997. Natural eloquence: women reinscribe science. Univ of Wisconsin Press.
Lightman, Bernard V. 1997. Victorian science in context. University of Chicago Press: London.
McEnery, A., Z. Xiao & Y. Tono. 2005. Corpus-Based Language Studies : An Advanced Resource Book. London : Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K., J.R. Martin. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hoey, M. 2001. Textual Interaction. London, New York: Routledge.
Hunston, S. 2010. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. Phraseology and Evaluative Language. Routledge (Taylor & Francis).
McEnery, Tony, Andrew Wilson. 2001. Corpus linguistics. An introduction. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Richards, Evelleen. 1997. 'Redrawing the boundaries: Darwinian science and Victorian women intelletuals. In: Lightman, Bernard V. Victorian science in context. University of Chicago Press: London.119 ff.
Shteir, Ann B. 1990. ‘Botanical Dialogues: Maria Jacson and Women's Popular Science Writing in England.’ Eighteenth-Century Studies. Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring, 1990), pp. 301-317.
Shteir, Ann B. 1997. ‘Elegant recreations? Configuring science writing for women.’ In: Lightman, Bernard V. Victorian science in context. University of Chicago Press: London. 179 ff.
Lehrveranstaltungskonzept 2 | Sabine Bartsch 1 | 2