Linguistics: Who’s who and what’s what in clinical psychology discourse – School of Literature, Art and Media Linguistics: Who’s who and what’s what in clinical psychology discourse – School of Literature, Art and Media

Linguistics: Who’s who and what’s what in clinical psychology discourse

Who’s who and what’s what in clinical psychology discourse

Presenter: Dragana (Gaga) Stosic

This presentation deals with the naming of people, things, activities and characteristics in clinical psychology. When it comes to the language of science, the concepts of ‘technicality’, ‘abstraction’ and ‘grammatical metaphor’ have attracted a considerable amount of attention within the SFL community (e.g. Halliday & Martin, 1993; Hao & Humphrey, 2019; Martin & Veel, 1998). However, Hao (2020) argues that the relationships among these concepts are “far from clear” (p. 7). As a solution, she proposes that entity types within a given discipline be explored and described using a tri-stratal perspective, including field, discourse semantics, and lexicogrammar. Building upon Hao’s (2020) discourse semantic system of  entity type in undergraduate biology experiment reports, this talk explores the entities found in a sample of clinical trial reports that deal with depressive and anxiety disorders. To investigate the entities from ‘above’, it draws from a recently developed field network (Doran & Martin, 2021) and Hood’s (2010) distinction between ‘the object of study’ and the ‘field of research’. From ‘below’, it focuses on the experiential meanings at the group and clause levels (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014). From ‘around’, it comments on the interaction between entities and evaluation (Martin & White, 2005). Following these discussions, a comparison between the entity type systems in clinical psychology and biology will be made, with the former including: (a) ‘characteristic’ entities as well as more delicate classes of ‘source’ entities; (b) less delicate classes of ‘activity’ entities; and (c) the characterisation sub-system (in addition to categorisation and definition).

References:

Doran, Y. J., & Martin, J. R. (2021). Field Relations: Understanding scientific explanations. In K. Maton, J. R. Martin, & Y. J. Doran (Eds.), Studying science: Language, knowledge and pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and discoursive power. London: Falmer Press.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hao, J. (2020). Analysing scientific discourse from a systemic functional linguistic perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hao, J., & Humphrey, S. L. (2019). Reading nominalizations in senior science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 42, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100793

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (Eds.). (1998). Reading science: Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London & New York: Routledge.

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Zoom Session Link

Password: 919554

Tags:

Date

Nov 06 2020
Expired!

Time

4:00 pm - 5:00 pm

Location

Via Zoom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *