https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8786-0828
ABSTRACT
This study analyzes Chinese online science communication and discussion about genetically modified foods (GMFs). Based on data collected from one of the largest Chinese GMFs science popularization website, it utilizes Wodak’s discourse analysis to investigate how Chinese genetically modified (GM) scientific discourse is characterized by a range of discursive strategies that construct specific identity of Chinese GM scientists and explore science hegemony underlying Chinese GMFs debates. Findings show that discourse features of Chinese GM scientific discourse is objective as well as emotional, particularly conveying a strong sense of superiority realized by trope, argumentative strategies and intertextuality. The unequal power relationship between scientists and the public as well as Chinese intellectuals’ knowledge hegemony could partly explain why those discursive strategies are employed in science communication practices of GMFs debates in Chinese context.
1. Introduction
Controversies surrounding genetically modified foods (GMFs) have always been a popular research theme in the fields of science communication. Efforts have been made by scientists around the world to justify and communicate their work related to GMF issues.Citation1–8 For example, TokeCitation6 studies the opinions of official scientists in Europe and compares them to American scientists, discovering that different science debates result from different scientific discourse cultures in that GMFs is more often regarded as a fuel in the USA while in Europe, especially in countries such as Italy, France and Greece, scientists see GMFs as a part of their own national identities. Cook et al.Citation3 discover that British scientists tend to construct a monolithic scientific identity in which the scientists and the public are treated as a binary opposition. Then Motion and DoolinCitation5 illustrate that New Zealand’s scientists use narratives to construct a multifaceted identity (including scientific and public identities) to gain public recognition. In a similar vein, Indian scientific elitesCitation7 attempt to share a social identity with farmers to construct a context for the particular public policy prescriptions they support and avoid criticism of their professional activities. In the UK, the national debate on GMFs shifts toward a more democratic process of public engagement due to a deepening crisis of trust in scientists.Citation9 While in Japan, scientists involved in GMFs debates find it difficult to push their arguments forward by relying solely on logic without considering ideas like citizen participation, benefit, etc.Citation10 Similar problems also exist in many African countries.Citation1,Citation4 Those studies indicate that scientists in different cultures involved in GMFs controversies use different ways, appropriate or inappropriate, to “protect autonomy over professional activities”Citation11 in their national context when dealing with GMFs issues. However, it is rare to see researches on the voice of Chinese scientists coping with GMFs issues in the international academic community; therefore it is meaningful to investigate how GM scientists communicate their work with the public in the context of China.
Over the past decade, GMF debates have become problematic in China and GMFs debates have surfaced repeatedly in the public eye since 2010.Citation12,Citation13 StatisticsCitation12 show that supporters (11.9%) are vastly outnumbered by opponents (46.7%) toward GM science. Against this backdrop, scholarsCitation13–17 tried to illustrate the reasons hidden from different perspectives. For instance, Chu and WangCitation14 analyze that experts involved in GMFs issues suffer from a serious credibility crisis among Chinese public. Regarding the science communication on GMFs, YangCitation8 discovers that the emerging citizen science communicators in China challenged the authority of Chinese scientists. Many other factors like the gap between science communication and media communication,Citation15 the Chinese public’s engagement in GMFs controversies and ineffective mechanism governing risk communication and risk management,Citation13 the public’s level of knowledge about GMO,Citation17 etc. Most studies focused on GM science communication from a relatively macro perspective, deconstructing its social, cultural, economical and environmental factors and few of them paid attention to the specific discourse of Chinese scientists, particularly strategic use of language that helps the scientific community defend their beliefs. As a result, the present study seeks to investigate how GM scientific discourses are constructed in China. In order to achieve this goal, it adopts 40 pieces of GM scientific discourses collected from GM science communication website as the research object, and critical discourse analysis (CDA) is employed to explore inner relationship between the GM scientific discourse and Chinese society,Citation18 particularly discursive strategies utilized by scientists.
2. Critical Discourse Analysis
In most cases, critical discourse analysis (CDA) is used to study social practices through discourse which is considered as “the language associated with a particular social field or practice”.Citation19 Particularly, it proposes that discourse is a social practice, indicating a dialectical relationship between a particular discourse practice and the specific contexts, linguistic patterns and social structures that form them. Discourses not only shape social structures but also reshaped by them.Citation20 Through the analysis of specific language use in its socio-historical context, CDA aims to uncover the role that discursive strategies play in the creation and reproduction of (un)equal power relations, also considered as indicative of the ideological effects. Such a goal of CDA directly conforms to the objective of this paper to explore the GMFs-related power relations through analyzing discursive strategies.
2.1. Wodak’s Approach
Wodak’sCitation21 discourse historical approach (DHA) lays emphasis on the analysis of larger social and historical context, attempting to probe into the relationship between discourse and society from a diachronic perspective. Specifically, DHA adopts a top-down analyzing process, starting from the analysis of social practices (macro analysis) to specific textual analysis (micro analysis), which is three-dimensional: after (1) identifying the specific contents or topics of a specific discourse, (2) discursive strategies are being investigated. Then (3) linguistic means (as types) and the specific, context-dependent linguistic realizations (as tokens) are examined. When realizing the three dimensions, WodakCitation21 focuses on five major types of discursive strategies, which are believed to be more or less intentional plan of discursive practice adopted to achieve a particular social, political, psychological or linguistic goal. Those discursive strategies are located at different levels of linguistic organization and complexity, in which different specific devices achieve different objectives, for example, tropes such as metaphors could help discursively construct social actors, events and processes. Such a perspective gives some clues to the present study that the reversed version (down-top) of the three dimensions and several discursive strategies could help guide the study of GMFs scientific discourse practice(also social practice) in non-western social context. By combining the indigenous characteristics of GMFs discourse practice, I developed our own analyzing steps based on DHA: First, focusing on the more specific linguistic devices employed in the discourse; second, argumentation strategies found in the data are illustrated; third, extrapolating the main discourse topic.
3. Data Source and Method
3.1. Data
The data comprised 40 texts collected from Chinese GM science popularization website (https://www.agrogene.cn/) which is founded on the science communication platform of Agricultural biotechnology in 2013. Differing from other websitesFootnotea investigating GMFs topics as well as various other science topics, this website covers only the GM science communication and develops into one of the biggest and most popular website communicating GM science to the public in China. The texts, written by Chinese experts, professors, professionals, scientists, researchers, science writers, etc. (see ), were reposted by various social media like Wechat, blog, microblog, etc. and some were read by more than 10 million citizens, which makes the website a more comprehensive and authoritative site for exploring the scientific discourse in Chinese context.
Table 1. Different writers of GM scientific discourse.
3.2. Analytical Categories
This study uses Wodak’sCitation21 discourse approach, attempting to probe into the relationship between GM scientific discourse and society from a historical perspective. Discursive strategies constructing specific GM scientific discourse could be shown in its linguistic means, particularly in those specific, context-dependent linguistic realizationsCitation21. The current study considers GM scientific discourse as a carrier of explicit or implicit intentions, in which strategies are adopted to achieve a particular social, political, psychological or linguistic aim.Citation22 Strategies used by Chinese GM scientific discourses can be traced by specific linguistic devices according to a bottom-up analyzing procedure. Firstly examining the scattered linguistic realizations of GM scientific discourse, secondly the discursive strategies are investigated and thirdly the specific social and historical context of GM scientific discourse is analyzed. More specifically, the analytical categories utilized in the present study include tropes (metaphor and irony), argumentation (authorization), and discourse representation (intertextuality). In addition, Van Leeuwen’s,Citation23 legitimation theory is also used to illustrating the data. gives a brief view of our findings on the major discursive strategies and their corresponding sub-strategies.
Table 2. Major discursive strategies in Chinese GM scientific discourses.
4. Analysis and Interpretation
4.1. Construct Objectivity
Through discourse analysis of the collected data, the most notable feature of GM science popularization is construction of objectivity, which is realized and legitimized through three major ways: numbers and percentages, impersonal authority, and personal authority (see ). The GM science system attempts to establish and cultivate its belief through “legitimation by reference to the authority of tradition, custom, law, and/or persons in whom institutional authority of some kind is vested”.Citation23 For example,
1. 有学者统计，肯定转基因安全的论文，有9300篇，占99.7%，否定转基因安全的论文只有32篇，占0.3%，而这32篇论文所依据的实验，都是错误的实验，都被学术界彻底否定了，论文的作者也大都承认实验做错了。
According to some scholars’ statistics, there are 9,300 papers that affirm the safety of GMOs, accounting for 99.7%, while only 32 papers deny their safety, accounting for 0.3%. Moreover, the experiments cited in these 32 papers were all flawed and have been thoroughly refuted by the academic community. Most of the authors of these papers have also admitted that their experiments were conducted incorrectly.
Table 3. Distributions of strategies constructing objectivity.
Information in science is typically presented accurately and objectively, as well as in an assertive tone.Citation24 Example 1 asserts the safety information of verified GMFs in scientific community by presenting accurate numbers and percentages. Such statistical evidence are frequently used by scientists to enhance the credibility of their statements.
2. 在这次讲话中，总书记谈了他对转基因的看法。他说 … …
In the speech, President Xi expresses his own views on the GM technology. He said ……
3. 国际经济合作与发展组织（OECD）、联合国粮农组织（FAO）和世界卫生组织（WHO）近年都分别做出了“转基因育种与传统育种同样安全”的科学结论。在最为保守的欧盟方面，欧盟食品安全局（EFSA）也表态 … …
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development(OECD)，the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the World Health Organization (WHO) all claim that “GM breeding is as safe as the traditional breeding.” Even in the most conservative EU, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also state that ……
The above two extracts use personal authority and impersonal authority respectively. Example 2 cites president Xi Jinping’s words to increase the authority of the safety of GMFs. As the representative of Chinese government, Xi is followed and respected by government officials and he himself is also a role model for the Chinese public. Example 3 then appeals to many authoritative institutions confirming the safety of GMFs, for instance, the OECD, FAO, WHO, EFSA, and others. Each institution represents its authoritative voice in corresponding field, such as the agricultural field, the health field, the medical field, the scientific field and so on.
4.2. Legitimize Scientific Authority
By analyzing discursive strategies of GM scientific discourse, the most significant discourse feature of GM science communication is that GM scientists are relatively emotional, particularly in legitimizing their scientific authority, which is uncommon and considered to be unsuitable in traditional science communication. Traditionally, science popularization is often attached with the description of “seriousness”Citation25 and Chinese scientists tend to use a serious tone even on social media platforms.Citation8 In the present study, emotions are salient among scientists engaging in GMFs science communication, for example the utilization of irony and identity inclusion/exclusion.
4.2.1. Irony
Irony usually involves “the attribution of an evaluative, even judgmental attitude”.Citation26 This attitude, often the negative one, displays anger, sarcasm, hatred, or other similar feelings. Through the analysis of GM scientific discourses, it has been found that many words are played by text producers to achieve an ironical effect by deliberately mismatching certain words’ apparent meaning and their situation context, for example placing words in quotes in the following words.
4. 黑龙江省的几个“专家”竟然把国务院的判断都扔到垃圾箱去了。针对之前黑龙江大豆协会副秘书长王小语、中国大豆产业协会常务副会长刘登高等“专家”发出的荒唐言论 … …
Several “zhuanjia(experts)” in Hei Longjiang province ignore the State Council’s decision. In response to the absurd remarks made by “zhuanjia(experts)” Wang Xiaoyu, deputy secretary-general of Hei Longjiang Soybean Association ……
5. 张教授凭什么说“需要长期监测才能对其安全性作出较为客观的评价”？就因为他极其“专业”地发现了“转基因食品的安全性评价具有累积性和潜伏性”？ … … 却偏要举着“专业”的大棒砸人.
Why did professor Zhang say, “long-term monitoring is needed to make a more objective evaluation of its safety”? Is it because he “professionally” found out that “the safety assessment of GMFs is cumulative and latent”? …… but he insists on using his “professional” authority to criticize others.
In example 4, zhuanjia(experts) is enclosed in quotation marks, meaning opposite to its original meaning – expert.Citation27 Here, zhuanjia(experts) with quotation marks is to express discontent, disagreement, dissatisfaction of the text-producer, which implicitly indicates that experts are unworthy of their titles, because they “act against their conscious” and “talk nonsense.” The word “professionally” and “professional” in example 5 are also used in quotes to implicitly satirize professor Zhang’s statement, doubts his professional level and challenges his professional authority. The lexical ironic is to criticize “Other” (experts in other fields) and highlight “Self” (GM experts).Citation28 Words like “zhuanjia(expert),” “professional,” etc. are usually formally used in scientific discourse, however, they are rhetorically played in the construction of GM scientific discourse, which is a rare phenomenon in science communication.
4.2.2. Identity Inclusion/exclusion
Another salient discursive strategy used to legitimize scientists’ authority is identity inclusion/exclusion. Using identity differences to include or exclude people into or out of certain circles. In the present study, this identity classification is mainly conducted on the basis of one’s educational background, professions. The strategy of inclusion/exclusion comprises three aspects (see ): Stressing zige (qualifications), emphasizing professional or nonprofessional background, and highlighting scientific literacy.
6. 说句老实话，你有什么资格跟我谈黄金大米的科学问题呢？
To be honest, what makes you qualified to discuss with me the scientific issues of the golden rice?
7.那么问题来了: 这两位都是搞经济的，跟转基因技术半毛钱关系都没有，有资格质疑转基因技术吗？
So the question is: Both of them are economists and have nothing to do with GM technology. Are they qualified to question GM technology?
Table 4. Identity inclusion/exclusion in GM scientific discourse.
In the above two examples, zige(qualifications) is stressed as the prerequisite to talk about GMF issues. This diction reflects the speaker’s superiority in self-identity and educational background, which qualifies him for GMFs discussion. The emphasis of zige(qualifications) includes only a small group of GM scientists who know GM technology well, and this way to foreground the GM science community can also be expressed through different wording choices, for example the following statements:
8. 网上、电视上经常会看到一些非专业人士语气肯定地说 … … 每当看到这种言论，我都有种哭笑不得的感觉——食品安全的检测标准与检测方法什么时候轮到外行来制定了？
You often see nonprofessionals speaking confidently on the Internet and TV… Whenever I see these kinds of remarks, I feel both amused and helpless – when did it become the turn of amateurs to set standards and testing methods for food safety?
9. 激烈反对转基因往往是文科生。譬如，崔永元。崔永元拍的纪录片，在专业人士看来实在外行。
Intense opposition to GMFs often comes from students of the humanities, such as Cui YongyuanFootnoteb and the documentary made by him is seen as amateurish by professionals.
In example 8, a professional background is suggested as necessary to engage with GMFs discussions; however, in example 9, Cui’s background would disqualify him, though his documentary has attracted most Chinese to participate in GMFs debates. Such “unprofessional” amateur, often most ordinaries, therefore, are inferior in educational background compared with GM professionals.
10. 转基因“禁令”事件 … … 除了证明当地官员的科学素养低下之外 … …
The “GM banning” event demonstrates the low scientific literacy of local officials.
11. 民众的科学素养不高，政府的公信力不足让民众信服。
The public’s science literacy needs to be improved and the government’s credibility is insufficient to convince its people.
Examples 10 and 11 stress the importance of one’s (including government officials and the public) scientific literacy in discussion of GMFs, implying the educational advantage of GM science writers.The examples depict the GM science community’s higher social status, social stratum, and educational background. However, this educational advantage creates a knowledge hegemony that is accessible to scientists but not to most ordinary people.
4.3. Intertextualize Historical and Socio-Cultural Contexts
4.3.1. Historical Elements
Intertextuality is basically “the property texts have of being full of snatches of other texts, which may be explicitly demarcated or merged in and which the text may assimilate, contradict, ironically echo, or forth”.Citation29 Through analysis, it is found that many historical elements are adopted to help construct GM scientific discourse.
12. 不明真相者觉得转基因很恐怖、要谨慎，但在我们看来这种担心与百多年前大清子民担心照相会摄魂没多大区别。
The uninformed believe that GM organisms are terrifying and should be approached with caution, but in our viewpoints, this concern is no different from that of the Qing Dynasty citizens who feared that photography would steal their souls over a hundred years ago.
13. 当初火车发明的时候，有人提出来火车的时速超过 45千米会对人的大脑有损伤。几十年过去了，回过头来看，我们现在的高铁，300千米、400千米的时速，人的大脑有没有受损伤呢？
When trains were first invented, someone suggested that speeds exceeding 45 kilometers per hour would damage the human brain. Decades later, looking back, with our high-speed rail of 300-400 km/h, has the human brain been damaged?
Examples 12 and 13 utilize historical disputes to justify GMFs safety. “Because history teaches that specific actions have specific consequences, one should perform or omit a specific action in specific situation”,Citation21 in other words, historical experience could provide reference for future actions. In example 12, the dispute over introducing cameras into China draws a historical analogy, predicting that GMFs will be finally and naturally accepted by the public just like nowadays taking photos is regarded as normal by everyone. Similarly, example 13 refers to historic resistance toward railway technology due to fears damage to the human brain and points out the current widespread use of evidently safe bullet trains. It should be noted that intertextualize similar historical allusions may render a discourse opaque and inaccessible to certain readers, thus establishing relations of power among interlocutors.Citation29 Science writers make no efforts to explain links between the referred historical contexts and the present GM topic, but leave this job to readers. For those who fail to understand the implicit link will not only be excluded out as outsiders, but also lose the “affective reward of feeling part of the elites who share that intertextual system of reference”Citation30: 134). By alluding to, but not explaining historical references, the intertextuality of those scientific discourses performs an elitist function and sets a boundary between the science community and the public.
4.3.2. Socio-Cultural Elements
Through analysis of the collected data, intertextualized socio-cultural elements are found to be a salient discursive strategy employed in GM scientific discourse. One major point is repeatedly blending social negative attitudes toward scientists to show their discontent, for example GM scientists are usually labeled as “hanjian(traitors)” by anti-GM activists. Similar negative personal remarks, such as the Chinese character “maiguozei” or “zuiren” appeared in the data 17 times. For instance,
14. 我们做工作，想为国家做一点事情，却被骂成了间谍、卖国贼、罪人、汉奸，很多人戴了帽子以后，心里很不舒服。
We (refer to GM scientists) wanted to do something for our country, but we were regarded as traitors. Many scientists felt uncomfortable when they were labeled as “traitors.”
This reveals that the challenges that GM scientists face is far more than scientific debates; rather, more social and cultural factors need to be considered.
Another point is the mixing of philosophical logicCitation8 in GM scientific discourse. By intertextualizing similar science principles, science culture is foregrounded. In fact, statements related to “logic,” in the Chinese character “luoji,” appeared in the data 27 times. The overwhelming blending of the logical culture into GM science popularization could be another form of science hegemony. For example, both of the following examples stress the logic culture engaged in the discussion of GMF topics.
15. 转基因能不能吃？不学生物，用逻辑也能判断
Can genetically modified foods be eaten? logic can also provide an answer without the need to study biology by yourself.
16. 我们现在的逻辑已经走向反面，人们先入为主地认为转基因食品不安全，因而要标注转基因食品，这可以说是科学技术史上最荒唐的一幕。
Our current logic has reversed, with people assuming that genetically modified foods are unsafe and therefore requiring labeling of such foods. This can be considered the most absurd scene in the history of scientific technology.
By intertextualizing related historical and socio-cultural contexts into GM scientific discourse, scientists attempt to draw a scientific boundary around them, by distinguishing between science and non-science in order to establish themselves as experts, strengthen the credibility of their claims,Citation25,Citation31 which further indicates the hidden science hegemony in Chinese GM scientific discourse.
5. Conclusion
Martin,Citation32 believes that the power of the science discourse derives from the ever-growing control it affords over the material environment through technology. But inappropriate control may lead to the loss of this scientific power, just as Chinese GM scientists constructing GM scientific discourses characterized by discursive strategies like irony, authorization, and intertextuality, all of which serve the “evidence-based ideology” and manifest certain science hegemony. For instance, the use of authorization, including objectification, personal and impersonal authority manifests science writers’ awareness of providing evidences. Apart from statistical numbers, the use of intertextuality implicitly analogizes historical elements and mixes socio-cultural elements, thus adding much more credibility to GMFs discourses. All those evidences increase the scientific objectivity to GM topics, but may bring the problem of over-objectivization of GM science, resulting in possible rhetorically weak persuasiveness among the public.
Of significance also in our analysis is how the scientific group strategically embeds emotions in GM scientific discourses. Except providing as much evidences as they can, GM science writers also use irony and identity inclusion/exclusion to justify the safety of GMFs when dealing with public skepticism as well as untrustworthiness from professionals in other fields. Since the communication of GM terminologies only is difficult to be understood and the public are no longer content with submitting themselves to professional authority, the GM elites find that it’s harder to be understood in the disguise of professional knowledge, but easier to be heard by emphasizing their professional identity. As a result, they raise the threshold to talk about the GMFs issues, exclude outsiders and link insiders tightly by knowledge hegemony, and enhance the power imbalance between them and the public, in order to maintain their professional status that others can hardly reach.
In short, GM debate represented in various media should be regarded as not only a science dispute, but also a power battlefield in which both the science community and GM opponents struggle to seize the initiative. Indeed, the overwhelming evidences in GM scientific discourses could make the science group politically credible and much more authoritative than others. However, combined with our analysis of irony and identity inclusion/exclusion, it is reasonable to believe that the evidence-based ideology will further strengthen GM science elites’ arrogance and superiority.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes
a. There are many websites, such as https://www.guokr.com/, https://www.moa.gov.cn/, https://www.kexuesongshuhui.com/, etc., trying to discuss science topics related to GMFs in China.
b. Cui Yongyuan is a well-known talk show host who rose to fame in China with an honest and courageous public persona. In 2013, Cui and Dr Fang, a biochemist, started an online GM food debate called “Fang-Cui’s war,” which motivated a nationwide discussion on the safety of genetically modified foods (GMFs). A year later in 2014, Cui’s documentary attempting to uncover the potential GMFs health risks again attracted intensive public attention. Cui then became a famous, influential anti-GMFs representative.
References
- Ampadu-Ameyaw R, Essegbey GO, Amaning EO. Public awareness, participation and attitude toward the national biosafety framework and genetically modified organisms in Ghana. J Biosafety & Biosecurity. 2021;3(2):147–53. doi:10.1016/j.jobb.2021.10.003.
- Cook G. Genetically modified language. London and New York: Routledge; 2004.
- Cook G, Pieri E, Robbins PT. The scientists think and the public feels: expert perceptions of the discourse of GM food. Discourse Soc. 2004;15(4):433–49. doi:10.1177/0957926504043708.
- Mmbndo GS. The legal aspect of the current use of genetically modified organisms in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. GM Crops & Food. 2023;14(1):1–12. doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2208999.
- Motion J, Doolin B. Out of the laboratory: scientists’ discursive practices in their encounters with activists. Discourse Stud. 2007;9(1):63–85. doi:10.1177/1461445606072110.
- Toke D. The politics of GM food: a comparative study of the UK, US and EU. London and New York: Routledge; 2004.
- Yamaguchi T. Controversy over genetically modified crops in India: discursive strategies and social identities of farmers. Discourse Stud. 2007;9(1):87–107. doi:10.1177/1461445607072107.
- Yang Z. Deconstruction of the discourses authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication: Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks. Public Underst Sci. 2021;30(8):993–1007. doi:10.1177/09636625211005106.
- Attar A, Genus A. Framing public engagement: a critical discourse analysis of GM nation? Technol Forecast Soc. 2014;88:241–50. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.07.005.
- Yamaguchi T, Suda F. Changing social order and the quest for justification: GMO controversies in Japan. Sci Technol Human Values. 2010;35(3):382–407. doi:10.1177/0162243909345837.
- Gieryn TF. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev. 1983;48(6):781–195. doi:10.2307/2095325.
- Cui K, Shoemaker SP. Public perception of genetically-modified (GM) foods: a nationwide Chinese consumer study. NPJ Sci Food. 2018;2(1):1–8. doi:10.1038/s41538-018-0018-4.
- Lv L, Chen HD. Chinese public’s risk perceptions of genetically modified food: from the 1990s to 2015. Sci, Technol & Soc. 2016;21(1):110–28. doi:10.1177/0971721815622743.
- Chu JY, Wang JR. Uncertain communication: controversy of science in new media coverage. Media Observer. 2019;8:41–49.
- Jia HP, Fan JQ. Why genetically modified crops are resisted: a systematic review of science communication studies. Studies On Sci Populariz. 2015;10:83–92.
- Lin JR. For or against genetically modified foods: different discursive strategies in Chinese social media. Public Underst Sci. 2021;30(8):1058–72. doi:10.1177/09636625211003823.
- You CH, Jin JB. The impact of scientific knowledge on attitudes towards controversial technology in China: a case study on genetically modified organisms (GMO). Chinese J Journalism & Communicat. 2020;42:81–98.
- Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. New York: Longman Publishing; 1995.
- Fairclough N. Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies. 2013;7(2):177–97. doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.798239.
- Fairclough N, Wodak R. Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk TA, editor. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage; 1977. pp. 258–84.
- Wodak R. Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach. In: Tracy K, IIie C Sandel T, editors. The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. Publication:John Wiley & Son; 2015. pp. 1–14. doi:10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116.
- Fairclough N. CDA as dialectical reasoning. In: Flowerdew J, Richardson JE, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge; 2018. pp. 13–25.
- Van Leeuwen T. Discourse and practice: new tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
- Schleppegrell JM. Linguistic features of the language of schooling. Ling Educ. 2001;12(4):431–59. doi:10.1016/S0898-5898(01)00073-0.
- Gieryn TF. Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1999. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226824420.001.0001.
- Meyers A. Toward a definition of irony. In: Fasold R Shuy R, editors. Studies in language variation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 1973. pp. 171–83.
- Qiu YP, Hong G. A study of implicature of quotation marks. J Zhejiang Normal Univ (Soc Sci). 2007;32:65–69.
- Van Dijk TA. Critical discourse analysis. In: Tannen D, Hamilton HE Schiffrin D, editors. The handbook of discourse analysis. Publication:John Wiley & Son; 2015. pp. 466–85. doi:10.1002/9781118584194.ch22.
- Fairclough N. Discourse and social change. London: Routledge; 1992.
- Adami E. The rhetoric of the implicit and the politics of representation in the age of copy-and-paste. Learn Media Technol. 2012;37(2):131–44. doi:10.1080/17439884.2011.641567.
- Gieryn TF. Boundaries of science. In: Jasanoff SS, Markle G, Petersen J, and Pinch T, editors. Handbook of science and technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. pp. 393–443.
- Martin JR. Discourses of science: recontextualization, genesis, intertextuality and hegemony. In: Martin JR Veel R, editors. Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science. London: Routledge; 1998. pp. 3–14.