University of Toronto
Constraints on generality: The (mis-)use of generic propositions in scientific prose
Abstract. Generic propositions are statements that make general claims about ‘kinds’ that are found in a wide variety of written genres and speech. By definition, generics do not include in their structure any reference to the conditions under which they hold true. Their mis-use in popular scientific writing, however, can erode the public’s confidence in the process of science itself when they discover that conclusions are highly contingent on certain truth conditions. The language used in scholarly scientific papers often includes qualifiers and hedges, the epistemological consequences of which have been explored by Bruno Latour, Thomas Kuhn, Ian Hacking and others. Some research shows that abstracts, however, often include generic statements that are not warranted by the scientific evidence described in the full text. Similarly, when accounts of scientific discoveries appear in popular media, journalists often remove qualifiers, hedges and context markers that existed in the original study. Studies in anthropology by Joseph Dumit, Annemarie Mol, Harris Solomon and others explore the human reactions to such pronouncements. One possible solution to the over-use of generics in scientific abstracts, especially for studies that rely on human subjects, is the inclusion of a mandatory sec-tion entitled “Constraints on Generality,” as suggested by Gutiérrez and Rogoff (2003). Other suggestions include using less nominalized verbs and more past-tense descriptions of what actually occurred in the particular study.
Keywords: generics, journalism, linguistics, publishing
- Asher, N., Pelletier, F.J. “More Truths about Generic Truth,” in: A. Mari, C. Beyssade, F. Del Prete (eds.), Genericity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 312–333.
- Barthes, R. Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang, 1972.
- Bourdieu, Pierre. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.
- Carlson, G.N. “A unified analysis of the English bare plural,” Linguistics and Philosophy, 1977, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 413–457.
- DeJesus, J.M., Callanan, M.A., Solis, G., Gelman, S.A. “Generic language in scientific communication,” PNAS, 2019, vol. 16, no. 37, pp 18370–18377.
- Dumit, J. Drugs for Life: How Pharmaceutical Companies Define Our Health. Duke University Press, 2012.
- Ezeifeka, Ch. R. Grammatical Metaphor: In Search of Proficiency in Research Abstract Writing,” SAGE Open, 2015 January-March, pp. 1–14.
- Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2002.
- Goldacre, B. I Think You’ll Find It’s a Bit More Complicated than That. London: Fourth Estate, 2015.
- Gilbert, G. N., Mulkay, M. Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
- Gutiérrez, K. D. Rogoff, B. “Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice,” Educational Researcher, 2003, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 19–25.
- Hacking, I. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999.
- Halliday, M.A.K. The Language of Science. Volume 5: The Collected Works of M.A.K. Halliday. New York: Continuum, 2006.
- Helmenstine, A. M. “What is a Molecule?” ThoughtCo.com, July 09, 2019. Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-molecule-definition-examples-608506 (accessed on December 19, 2019).
- Hesse, M. Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1966.
- Hinnant, A. “The Cancer on Your Coffee Table,” Feminist Media Studies, 2009, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 317–333.
- Jensen, J. D. “Scientific Uncertainty in News Coverage of Cancer Research: Effects of Hedging on Scientists’ and Journalists’ Credibility,” Human Communication Research, 2008, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 347–369.
- Kazemian, Bahram. “Ideational Grammatical Metaphor in Scientific Texts: A Hallidayan Perspective,” International Journal of Linguistics, 2013, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 146–168.
- Krifka, M. “Definitional Generics,” in: A. Mari, C. Beyssade, F. Del Prete (eds.), Genericity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 372–390.
- Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 3rd Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996 (1962).
- Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
- Latour, B. Science in Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.
- Latour, B., Woolgar, S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press, 1986 (1979).
- Levinovitz, A. The Gluten Lie: And Other Myths About What You Eat. New York: Regan Arts, 2015.
- Loomis, D, Guyton, KZ, Grosse et al. “Carcinogenicity of drinking coffee, maté, and very hot beverages,” The Lancet Oncology, Published online, 2016, 15 June. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470- 2045(16)30239-X (accessed on December 19, 2019).
- Lyons, J. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
- Mari, A., Beyssade, C., Del Prete, F. (eds), Genericity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
- Mol, A. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham: Duke University Press, 2002.
- Molitch, M. E. Goldman’s Cecil Medicine (Twenty Fourth Edition). Philadelphia: Saunders (Elsevier), 2012.
- OED. 2019. Online Etymology Dictionary. Available at: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fact (accessed on December 19, 2019).