Authors : Sujay Rao Mandavilli

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 6 - June

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/2ddub8rv

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5n7bbuj

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24JUN020

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : We begin this paper by presenting a broad overview and a history of the now mature and variegated field of discourse analysis in linguistics. We also present the various common present uses and downstream applications of the field of discourse analysis, as applied by both specialists and non-specialists in various fields, and also explore various possible specialist and non- specialist extensions of this approach. We then also interface this with different areas of hermeneutical study and analysis. We also proceed to propose an entirely new application and extension of the field of discourse analysis, one that can be used to peruse texts in order to distinguish between science and pseudo-science in scientific and scholarly research papers and publications, and in internal and third party reviews as well. This approach and methodology can be applied and orchestrated by critically perusing texts and documents to identify vested interests and logical flaws and fallacies as represented by standard and commonly identified logical fallacies in science. This approach, when then applied over a large volume and corpus of texts and documents, can be used productively, beneficially, and gainfully to identify and document new types of logical fallacies as well. Therefore we will be essentially and effectively be killing two birds with one stone. This will naturally be to the immense overall benefit of science and scholarly activity as a whole.

References :

1. Hyme,D(1974a).‘TowardsEthnographyofCommunication.’InFoundationin sociolinguistics:AnEthnographicApproach. Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress
2. Jakobson,R.(1960).‘ClosingStatement:LinguisticsandPoetics.’InSebeok,T.(Ed.) StyleinLanguage.Cambridge,MA: MITPress
3. Aristotle, On Interpretation, Harold P. Cooke (trans.), in Aristotle, vol. 1 (Loeb Classical Library), pp. 111–179. London: William Heinemann, 1938.
4. Clingerman, F. and B. Treanor, M. Drenthen, D. Ustler (2013), Interpreting Nature: The Emerging Field of Environmental Hermeneutics, New York: Fordham University Press
5. Olesen, Henning Salling, ed. (2013): "Cultural Analysis and In-Depth Hermeneutics." Historical Social Research, Focus, 38, no. 2, pp. 7–157
6. Przyłębski, Andrzej. Ethics in the Light of Hermeneutical Philosophy, LIT Verlag, Zurich 2017.
7. Parker Jones, O., Alfaro-Almagro, F., & Jbabdi, S. (2018). An empirical, 21st century evaluation of phrenology. Cortex. Volume 106. pp. 26–35.
8. Kaufman AB, Kaufman JC (12 March 2019). Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science. MIT Press. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-262-53704-9.
9. Hurd PD (1998). "Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world". Science Education