Communicating specialized knowledge: Introduction and overview

“Communicating Specialized Knowledge: Old Genres and New Media” was born out of the idea that domain-specific knowledge has two major dimensions to it: on the one hand, peer-to-peer communication that is primarily intended to further research within the disciplines; on the other, asymmetric communication of selected, ‘filtered’ knowledge to lay people. Importantly, communicating specialized knowledge involves the construction, presentation and communication of knowledge (Kastberg 2010; Ditlevsen 2011) in texts that effectively adjust to the knowledge background, knowledge- and personality-related needs of the intended addressees within the relevant communicative setting. In this context, research in Languages for Specific Purposes (LSP) has made important contributions to the study of ‘internal’, peer-to-peer communication in traditional genres and now remediated and emergent online genres. Working at the interface of theoretical and applied linguistics, specialized lexicography or terminology, and primarily taking genre-oriented and corpus-analytical approaches, LSP scholars have identified a number of recurrent features as broadly characterizing specialized communication in several domains of expertise. To name but a few: terminology, lexical density, extensive recourse to nominalization and modification within the noun phrase, frequent use of the passive voice and syntactically complex clauses, genre- and domain-specific metadiscourse and hedging. The very same features, however, might hinder ‘domain-external’ communication and the ability of experts and professionals to reach out to lay people. This remains a problem that commands scholarly attention in the context of the cultural growth and socio-economic development of contemporary society at large. Taking inspiration from seminal work like Linell (1998) and Calsamiglia and van Dijk (2004), therefore, the focus of LSP studies has recently broadened to cover the merits and demerits of knowledge dissemination and popularization strategies in domain-specific discourses (cf., e.g., Henriksen, Frøyland 2000; Gotti 2014; Garzone, Heaney, Riboni, eds. 2016; Bondi, Sezzi 2017; Salvi, Turnbull, eds. 2017; Engberg et al., eds. 2018). There are several reasons why experts should deliberately carry relevant parts of their specialized knowledge outside of their expert discourse communities and make them accessible to non-experts (adapted from Henriksen, Frøyland 2000; Allan 2002). Access to knowledge is a public good for all (UNESCO 2005). First, citizens interact with domain-specific texts on a daily basis (e.g., bank statements, tax reports and patient information leaflets). Additionally, domain literacy can earn citizens a better job while benefiting the nation as a whole. For instance, promoting financial literacy may help curb blind investments and prevent damage to individual households and the nation. In that sense, effective knowledge dissemination works towards empowerment of lay people, social inclusion and equality in the participation domain. As exposure to information in the digital world continues to grow, questions concerning the discursive strategies and the pragmatics of knowledge dissemination will continue to arise. For instance: • against the backdrop of landmark publications such as Scollon and Scollon (1995), Linell (1998), Calsamiglia and van Dijk (2004) or Gotti (2014), questions about recourse to linguistic knowledge dissemination strategies (cf., e.g. Bondi, Cacchiani, Mazzi, eds. 2015); • based on classics such as Barthes (1977 [1964]), Kress and van Leuween (2010) or Bateman (2014), issues concerning text/image pairs, multimodality and hyperstructural features in hyper-multimodal environments (cf., e.g., Lemke 2003; Engberg, Meier 2015), also in relation to web-page usability (e.g., Nielsen 1999; Farrell 2014; work by their associates at NN/g); • questions about roles and relationships, social maneuvering and knowledge control in relation to the knowledge-oriented and personality-related needs of participants in and beyond the relevant speech community and community of practice (Lave, Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998), also with an eye to the extended participatory framework of the web (Jenkins et al. 2006; Herring et al., eds. 2013); • questions about relevance and credibility, reputation and trust (Petitat 1998, 2004; Marková et al. 2008; Luhmann 2014; Bromme, Jucks 2018). Using the tools of genre studies and corpus linguistics, the present volume takes the reader on a journey in and outside of disciplines and field domains like medicine and health, corporate communication, cultural heritage and tourism. Our research question is twofold. At the domain-internal end of specialized communication, what is at issue is the transfer of high-quality information (innovative research results) to peers and professionals. On the domain-external dimension, we acknowledge the significance of knowledge availability and knowledge accessibility outside scholarly circles and disciplinary communities (cf., e.g., Engberg et al. 2018). The question of interest, therefore, is one about ‘intercultural communication’ (Scollon, Scollon 1995), recontextualization (Calsamiglia, van Dijk 2004) and reformulation (Gotti 2014), or ‘intralinguistic translation’ of selected expert knowledge that is assumed to be relevant to the knowledge-oriented needs of different types of lay audiences in asymmetric contexts. The long answer will emerge as the chapters unfold.