English for science and technology: A quest for legitimacy

Abstract

Initially, this paper touches on how the Galilean Method regulates the principles, procedures, and goals of science, and controls language use in scientific communication. It considers both the efforts made to characterize EST as a distinct area of discourse and those who question the validity of this claim. It is argued that the dispute finds its roots in the peripheral role assigned to the qualitative factors of scientific discourse in studies and discussions on this variety. It is thus suggested that EST analysis could benefit from adopting the scientific method of investigation, from some background knowledge of science, and from reconsidering some ideas found in linguistics on the discourse of science. This suggestion is exemplified by analysing a recent scientific event and some of its linguistic and conceptual frames from both a lay and a specialist perspective. The discussion brings out features indicative of the universality and uniformity of scientific discourse. Thus, it prompts a distinction between epistemological and textual rhetoric and a note on contrastive properties which could explain interlinguistic differences in this discourse type. The argument corroborates the need to define the EST variety in light of conceptual frames, conventions, and expectations shared by scientific communities.