疾病宣传、过度诊断与媒体实践:对认知节奏迟缓(SCT)和动机缺乏症(MoDeD)恶搞的批判性话语分析

IF 0.8 3区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Text & Talk Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI:10.1515/text-2022-0197
Dermot Heaney, Giorgia Riboni
{"title":"疾病宣传、过度诊断与媒体实践:对认知节奏迟缓(SCT)和动机缺乏症(MoDeD)恶搞的批判性话语分析","authors":"Dermot Heaney, Giorgia Riboni","doi":"10.1515/text-2022-0197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores ways in which the strategic use of discursive and generic conventions has the potential to create a non-existent pathology and mislead the public. This case study compares and examines datasets of different genres (newspaper issue reports, online videos, and Wikipedia pages) dealing with a condition considered as an actual illness (Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, SCT), and another (Motivational Deficiency Disorder, MoDeD), invented as a spoof to raise awareness about disease mongering, overdiagnosis, and medicalization. We evince common language strategies that, irrespective of the genre, can be employed in media discourse, both in the name of genuine medical information and in pursuit of more ethically questionable ends. The methodological tools provided by Critical Discourse Analysis are applied to both the authentic and the hoax texts in order to investigate the media representations of SCT and MoDeD, juxtaposing the ways in which both are framed conceptually, defined linguistically, and popularized to lay audiences. The findings indicate the existence of a common repertoire of lexical-phraseological, rhetorical and discursive patterns that typify the popularization of medicalized statuses and combine to increase the persuasiveness and authority of overdiagnosis, ultimately advancing the case for medicalization with the public at large.","PeriodicalId":46455,"journal":{"name":"Text & Talk","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disease mongering, overdiagnosis, and media practices: a critical discourse analysis of sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) and the motivational deficiency disorder (MoDeD) spoof\",\"authors\":\"Dermot Heaney, Giorgia Riboni\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/text-2022-0197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper explores ways in which the strategic use of discursive and generic conventions has the potential to create a non-existent pathology and mislead the public. This case study compares and examines datasets of different genres (newspaper issue reports, online videos, and Wikipedia pages) dealing with a condition considered as an actual illness (Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, SCT), and another (Motivational Deficiency Disorder, MoDeD), invented as a spoof to raise awareness about disease mongering, overdiagnosis, and medicalization. We evince common language strategies that, irrespective of the genre, can be employed in media discourse, both in the name of genuine medical information and in pursuit of more ethically questionable ends. The methodological tools provided by Critical Discourse Analysis are applied to both the authentic and the hoax texts in order to investigate the media representations of SCT and MoDeD, juxtaposing the ways in which both are framed conceptually, defined linguistically, and popularized to lay audiences. The findings indicate the existence of a common repertoire of lexical-phraseological, rhetorical and discursive patterns that typify the popularization of medicalized statuses and combine to increase the persuasiveness and authority of overdiagnosis, ultimately advancing the case for medicalization with the public at large.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Text & Talk\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Text & Talk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2022-0197\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Text & Talk","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2022-0197","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了策略性地使用话语和通用惯例有可能造成不存在的病理学并误导公众的方式。本案例研究比较并研究了不同体裁(报纸问题报道、在线视频和维基百科网页)的数据集,这些数据集涉及一种被视为实际疾病的病症(认知节奏缓慢,SCT)和另一种被编造为恶搞的病症(动机缺陷障碍,MoDeD),以提高人们对疾病大肆宣传、过度诊断和医疗化的认识。我们展示了媒体话语中常见的语言策略,无论其体裁如何,既可以真正的医学信息为名,也可以追求更多道德上有问题的目的。我们将批判性话语分析所提供的方法论工具应用于真实文本和骗局文本,以研究媒体对小儿麻痹症和失智症的表述,并将两者的概念框架、语言定义和向非专业受众普及的方式并列起来。研究结果表明,在医学化状态的普及过程中,存在着一套共同的词汇-短语、修辞和话语模式,这些模式共同增强了过度诊断的说服力和权威性,最终在广大公众中推动了医学化的进程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Disease mongering, overdiagnosis, and media practices: a critical discourse analysis of sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) and the motivational deficiency disorder (MoDeD) spoof
This paper explores ways in which the strategic use of discursive and generic conventions has the potential to create a non-existent pathology and mislead the public. This case study compares and examines datasets of different genres (newspaper issue reports, online videos, and Wikipedia pages) dealing with a condition considered as an actual illness (Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, SCT), and another (Motivational Deficiency Disorder, MoDeD), invented as a spoof to raise awareness about disease mongering, overdiagnosis, and medicalization. We evince common language strategies that, irrespective of the genre, can be employed in media discourse, both in the name of genuine medical information and in pursuit of more ethically questionable ends. The methodological tools provided by Critical Discourse Analysis are applied to both the authentic and the hoax texts in order to investigate the media representations of SCT and MoDeD, juxtaposing the ways in which both are framed conceptually, defined linguistically, and popularized to lay audiences. The findings indicate the existence of a common repertoire of lexical-phraseological, rhetorical and discursive patterns that typify the popularization of medicalized statuses and combine to increase the persuasiveness and authority of overdiagnosis, ultimately advancing the case for medicalization with the public at large.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Text & Talk
Text & Talk Multiple-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Text & Talk (founded as TEXT in 1981) is an internationally recognized forum for interdisciplinary research in language, discourse, and communication studies, focusing, among other things, on the situational and historical nature of text/talk production; the cognitive and sociocultural processes of language practice/action; and participant-based structures of meaning negotiation and multimodal alignment. Text & Talk encourages critical debates on these and other relevant issues, spanning not only the theoretical and methodological dimensions of discourse but also their practical and socially relevant outcomes.
期刊最新文献
The effects of modal value and imperative mood on self-predicted compliance to health guidance: the case of COVID-19 “The results might not fully represent…”: Negation in the limitations sections of doctoral theses by Chinese and American students Recurrent gestures and embodied stance-taking in courtroom opening statements Turning talk into text: the representation of contemporary urban vernaculars in Swedish fiction Critical comments in the disciplines: a comparative look at peer review reports in applied linguistics and engineering
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1