Coherence in popularized medico-pharmaceutical reports: The case of EPAR summaries for the public

Aage Hill-Madsen

Autores/as

Aage Hill-Madsen Aalborg University

Palabras clave:

coherencia, cohesión, géneros comunicación ciencias de la salud, reescritura, comunicación entre especialistas y no especialistas

Resumen

El presente artículo investiga un género médico-farmacéutico particular orientado a los profanos, a saber, el Informe Público Europeo de Evaluación - resumen para el público general, que es una versión resumida de un informe especializado mucho más largo publicado por la Agencia Europea de Medicamentos. El informe especializado expone los resultados de la evaluación por la Agencia de la solicitud de una determinada empresa farmacéutica para la autorización de comercialización de un medicamento en los países de la UE. El resumen para el público recoge lo esencial del texto fuente especializado en un registro lingüístico adecuado para un público no especializado. Sin embargo, aunque los resúmenes son, por tanto, producto de la adaptación registral, no está claro si la reescritura da como resultado textos suficientemente coherentes, dado que las características clave de la redacción de resúmenes - condensación y selección de información - pueden estar reñidas con la producción de textos coherentes. Por ello, basándose en una metodología analítica procedente de la Lingüística Sistémico-Funcional, este artículo investiga un pequeño corpus de resúmenes EPAR para evaluar el nivel de coherencia de estos textos reescritos. La investigación desvela las formas y el grado en que los resúmenes emplean dispositivos cohesivos estructurales y no estructurales para lograr la coherencia. Sin embargo, se llega a la conclusión de que, si bien el uso de estos dispositivos en los textos es tal que crea un claro potencial de coherencia, este potencial no se aprovecha adecuadamente, lo que significa que el nivel de coherencia de los textos deja algo que desear.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Askehave, I., & Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Mandatory genres: The case of European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries. Text & Talk, 28(2), 167-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.008.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies (pp. 17-35). Tübingen: Narr.

Büring, D. (2007). Intonation, semantics and information structure. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, pp. 445–474. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carmen, K. L., Dardess P., Maurer, M., Sofaer, S., Adams, K., Bechtel, C. & Sweeney, S. (2013). Patient and family engagement: A framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Affairs, 32(2), 223–231. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133.

Carrell, P. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly, 16(4), 479-488. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586466.

Chafe, W. L. (1976). Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics and Point of View. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Associated Press.

Charolles, M. (1997). L’encadrement du discours: univers, champs, domaines et espaces. (Cahier de recherche linguistique 6). Nancy: Université de Nancy 2.

European Medicines Agency. (2006). Reflection paper – EPAR summary for the public. <https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/regulatory-procedural-guideline/reflection-paper-european-public-assessment-report-summary-public_en.pdf> [12/12/2023].

European Medicines Agency. (2017). EPAR summary template. <https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/presentation/presentation-epar-summary-template-escanlan_en.pdf> [12/12/2023].

European Parliament/European Council. (2004). Council Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004.

<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32004R0726> [12/12/2023].

Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective (pp. 11-37). Prague: Academia.

Fries, P. H. (1983). On the status of Theme in English: Arguments from discourse. In J. S. Petöfi & E. Sözer (Eds.), Micro and macro connexity of texts (pp. 116-152). Hamburg: Helmut Buske.

Givón, T. (1995). Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 59-116). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Gundel, J., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, Ch. 8 (pp. 175-196). Malden, Oxford, Carlon: Blackwell Publishing.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3(2), 199-244.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London/New York: Routledge.

Hasan, R. (1984). Coherence and Cohesive Harmony. In J. Flood (Ed.), Understanding Reading Comprehension: Cognition, Language and the Structure of Prose (pp. 181-219). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hasan, R. (1989). The Texture of a Text. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Hasan (Eds.), Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective (pp. 70-96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hidi, S., & Anderson, V. (1986). Producing Written Summaries: Task Demands, Cognitive Operations, and Implications for Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 56(4), 473-493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543056004473.

Hill-Madsen, A. (2015). Lexical Strategies in Intralingual Translation between Registers.

HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 54, 85-105.

https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v27i54.22949

Hill-Madsen, A. (2019). Coherence in hybrid texts: The case of the Patient Information

Leaflet genre. HERMES – Journal of Language and Communication in Business, 59, 153-

https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v59i1.117038

Hill-Madsen, A. (2022b). Transformational strategies in diaphasic translation: three case

studies. Perspectives – Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, 30(4), 643-661.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1953085

Hill-Madsen, A. (2022a). Semantic density and gravity in lay-oriented medical knowledge

communication: The case of the EPAR Summary for the public. Nordic Journal of

English Studies, 21(2), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.781

Hill-Madsen, A. (2024). Semantic density and gravity in lay-oriented medical knowledge

communication II: The case of Patient Information Leaflets. Nordic Journal of English

Studies, 24(1), 41-74. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.v24i1.41116

Hill-Madsen, A. (in press). ‘Simplification’ and ‘accessibility’ in diaphasic intralingual

translation: A semantic interpretation. In H. Karas & H. B. Zeev Shyldkrot (Eds.),

Intralingual translation: Language, text and beyond. John Benjamins.

Hill-Madsen, A. & Dam-Jensen, H. (2022). Coherence in non-technical summaries of

European Central Bank financial reports. Fachsprache – Journal of Professional and

Scientific Communication, 44(1–2), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v44i1-2.1856

Hill-Madsen, A., & Pilegaard, M. (2019). Variable scope for popularization of specialized

terminology: The case of medico-pharmaceutical terms. Fachsprache – Journal of

Specialized Communication, 41(1-2), 22-40. https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v41i1-2.1623

Hoover, M. L. (1997). Effects of textual and cohesive structure on discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 23(2), 193–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537709544989.

Kleiber, G. (1999). Associative anaphora and part-whole relationships: The condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(3), 339-362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00072-1.

Krifka, M. (2008). Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 55(3-4), 243–276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/aling.55.2008.3-4.2.

Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Menzel, K., Lapshinova-Koltunski, E., & Kunz, K. (2017). Cohesion and coherence in multilingual contexts. In E. Lapshinova-Koltunski & K. Menzel (Eds.), New perspectives on cohesion and coherence: Implications for translation (pp. 1-11). Berlin: Language Science Press.

Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes 14(1), 1-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544772.

Parsons, G. (1991). Cohesion coherence: scientific texts. In E. Ventola (Ed.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics: Approaches and Uses (pp. 415–430). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Methods and Research Evaluation, 3rd ed. London/New Delhi: SAGE.

Plainlanguage.gov (2011). Federal Plain Language Guidelines. <https://plainlanguage.gov/media/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf> [12/12/2023].

Porta, M. and Last, J. M. (2018). Anatomical therapeutic chemical classification (ATC). In A Dictionary of public health. 2nd ed. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/97801918443 86.001.0001/acref-9780191844386-e-187?rskey=edQ4wk&result=2 [12/12/2023].

Raynor, D. K., & Bryant, D. (2013). European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) Summaries for the Public: Are they Fit for Purpose? A User-Testing Study. British Medical Journal Open, 3(9), 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003185.

Sanders, T., & Sanders, J. (2006). Text and Text analysis. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 597-607). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Sanders, T. J. M., Spooren, W. T. M., & Noordman, L. G. M. (1993). Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 93-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.2.93.

Sanford, A. (2006). Coherence: Psycholinguistic Approach. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 585-591). Oxford: Elsevier.

Seidlhofer, B., & Widdowson, H. (1999). Coherence in summary: The contexts of appropriate discourse. In W. Bublitz et al. (Eds.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to create it and how to describe it. Selected papers from the International Workshop on Coherence, Augsburg, 24-27 April 1997 (pp. 205-219). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Taboada, M. T. (2004). Building Coherence and Cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Tanskanen, S.-K. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Thompson, S. E. (1994). Aspects of cohesion in monologue. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 58–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.1.58.