Self-mentioning: Authority, authorship or self-promotion in 17thC prefaces to manuals on obstetrics?
Palabras clave:
Self-mentioning, discourse analysis, pragmatics, Early Modern English texts on obstetrics, surgeons, midwives, manualsResumen
Early Modern English texts on obstetrics have been a subject of study in the history of medicine and a source of a supposed antagonism between women midwives, on the one hand and surgeons and male midwives, on the other. Nevertheless, it can be questioned if sustaining this type of controversy was the main purpose of these works. This paper presents a discourse and pragmatic analysis of stance attribution in nine prefaces to obstetric books of mainly the 17th C. By paying attention to self-mentioning, the main objective is to determine if their writers (a) defended the authority of a professional community, (b) emphasized their individual contribution to the obstetrics bibliography, or (c) were basically interested in selling their books. Texts have been accessed in digitalized facsimile form and the pronoun counting has therefore been performed manually. The results obtained, illustrated and completed with examples, show there has been a misconception of “obstetric treatises” of the period, which in turn has obscured their basic purpose.
Descargas
Citas
Anon. (1682). The English midwife enlarged. London: Thomas Sawbridge.
<http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
Barton, E. L. (1993). Evidentials, argumentation, and epistemological stance.
College English, 55(7), 745-769.
Barton, D. (2007). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Barret, R. (1699). A companion for midwives, child-bearing women and nurses. London: Tho. Ax. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
Biber, D. et al. (1999). Longman grammar ofspoken and written English. New York: Longman.
Claude Moore Health Science Library. (2009).“English physician by Nicholas Culpeper”. <http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/rare_books/herbalism/ culpeper.cfm> [21/1/2011].
Culpeper, N. (1651). A directory for midwives. London: Peter Cole. [04/05/08].
Davis, Ll. (1998). Sexuality and gender in the English Renaissance: An annotated edition of contemporary documents. London: Taylor & Francis.
Downing, A. (2001). ‘Surely you knew!’ Surely as a marker of evidentiality and stance. Functions of Language, 8(2), 251-282.
Downing, A. (2009). Surely as a marker of dominance and entitlement in the crime fiction of P.D. James. Brno Studies in English, 35(2), 80-92.
Dunn, P. M. (1999). The Chamberlen family (1560-1728) and obstetric forceps. Perinatal lessons from the past. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal, 81, 232-235 [22/1/2011].
Dunn, P. M. (2004). Louise Bourgeois (1563-1636): Royal midwife of France. Perinatal Lessons from the Past. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal, 89, 185-187. [17/11/2008].
Evenden, D. (2000). The midwives of seventeenth century London. Cambridge: CUP. Guillimeau, J. (1612). Child birth or, The happy deliverie of women. London: A.
Hatfield. Accessed at: <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
Harwood, N. (2005). ‘Nowhere has anyone attempted... In this article I aim to do just that’. A corpus-based study of self-promotional I and WE in academic writing across four disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(8), 1207-1231.
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382.
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207-226.
Hyland, K. (2002). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 215-239.
Hyland, K. (2005a). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Hyland, K. (2005b). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2006). Disciplinary differences: Language variation in academic discourses. In K. Hyland and Marina Bondi (Eds.), Academic discourse across disciplines (pp. 17-49). Germany: Peter Lang.
McTavish, L. (2005). Childbirth and the display of authority in early modern France. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishers Ltd.
Martín-Martín, P. (2003). Personal attribution in English and Spanish scientific texts. Barcelona English Language and Literature Studies, 12 <http://www.raco.cat/ index.php/Bells/article/view/82918/108653>.
Mauriceau, F. (1672). The diseases of women with child and child bed. London: John Darby. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
Mele-Marrero, M. & Alonso-Almeida, F. (forthcoming). The role of the pronouns he and she in seventeenth century obstetric directives.
Mur-Dueñas, P. (2007). I/we focus on...: Across-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6, 143-162.
Murphy, J. (1986). La retórica en la Edad Media. Méjico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Nevala, M. (2009). Altering distance and defining authority. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 10(2), 238-259.
Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34-47.
Power, D’Arcy. (1927). The birth of mankind or the woman’s book. A bibliographic study. The library, 8(1) 2-37.
Radcliffe, W. (1989). Milestones in midwifery and the secret instrument. San Francisco: Norman Publishers.
Raynalde, Thomas. (1552). The birth of mankind, otherwise named the woman’s book <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
Sánchez-Cuervo, M. (2009). Rhetorical evaluation of seventeenth century prefaces to English treatises on midwifery. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 46(1), 17-34.
Sermon, W. (1671). The ladies companion or the English midwife. London: Edward Thomas. http://eebo.chadwyck.com [04/05/08].
Spencer, H. (1927). Wolveridge’s ‘Speculum Matricis’. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine (pp. 56-62). <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2100830/pdf/procrsmed01198-0062.pdf> [10/12/2010].
T. C., I. D., M. S., & T. B. (1656). The complete midwifes practice. London: Nathaniel Brooke. Accessed at <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
Thulesius, O. (1994). Nicholas Culpeper, father of English midwifery. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 87, 552-556.
Van Teijlingen, E., Lowis, G. W. & McCaffery, P. (Eds.). (2004). Midwifery and the medicalization of childbirth: Comparative perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Weber, P. (2005). Interactive features in medical conference monologue. English for Specific Purposes, 24,157-181.
Wellcome Library. (2009). The Birth of Mankind. [21/10/2010].
Wolveridge, J. (1669). Speculum matricis hibernicum or the Irish midwives handmaid. London: E. Okes. <http://eebo.chadwyck.com> [04/05/08].
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cuál estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de reconocimiento de Creative Commons que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
Revista de Lenguas para fines específicos is licensed under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional License.
