Abstract
We analyze Astrophysics titles published in Scientific American Magazine in the period 1990-2014 and compare them with Astrophysics titles of specialized journals. Our main results show that titles published in Scientific American are short, clear, direct and with low lexical density and little terminology. They mainly consist in simple and nominal constructions with few adjectives and compound groups. The predominance of nominal compounds and the high number of verbal titles and definite articles imply that popularized science titles mainly deal with global and wellestablished concepts. Pragmatic and rhetorical strategies are common in Astrophysics Scientific American titles in order to appeal to multiple audiences and invite them to use their cultural background knowledge to grasp at the actual meaning. Although pragmatic and rhetorical mechanisms overlap in some titles, rhetorical devices seem to prevail over pragmatic ones. All in all, however, both types of devices reveal a growing trend over time.
Highlights
Ever since humans appeared on Earth, stars have always stirred their fantasy due to their remoteness and the aura of mystery that surrounds them
As our linguistic analysis has put forward, titles related to astrophysical matters published in SciAm are easier to understand by a general public than those published in specialized Astrophysics journals, which are addressed to a more restricted audience
We have conducted research on the linguistic and discourse practices of all the Astrophysics titles published in Scientific American Magazine, an internationally prestigious journal in the divulgation of science, over the past quarter century (1990-2014)
Summary
Ever since humans appeared on Earth, stars have always stirred their fantasy due to their remoteness and the aura of mystery that surrounds them. The boundary between specialist and popularized discourses and between scientists and non-specialists is not as clear-cut as it might be thought because both types of discourse and communities interact in the process of knowledge construction (Myers, 2003; Fahnestock, 2004; Bucchi, 2008; among others). As Hyland (2010: 19) so rightly pointed out, “popular science does not just report scientific facts to a less specialist audience but represents phenomena in different ways to achieve different purposes”. In this sense, scientific divulgation is a “civic” process that makes scientific issues understandable to general audiences (Kalleberg, 2000; Kyvik, 2005; Luzón Marco, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
