Epistemic shifts of author commitment in Darwin’s six editions of On the Origin of Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epistemic shifts of author commitment in Darwin’s six editions of On the Origin of Species Heidi Verplaetse, Lessius/KULeuven Jelle Calders, Lessius/KULeuven Following earlier research into the expression and frequency of epistemic modality in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (cf. Crismore and Farnsworth 1989) and research on the translation of epistemic modality in this groundbreaking work of scientific literature (cf. Brisset 2002, Algoet 2008 and Vandepitte et al. 2011), the current paper investigates the modal epistemic shifts which Darwin himself introduced in the six different editions of his account. The aim of this investigation is twofold: (i) the primary purpose is to track and describe the author’s evolving commitment to his novel and controversial ideas on evolutionary biology, (ii) secondly, the findings of this analysis may serve two educational linguistic purposes, viz. to illustrate the usage of modal expressions in general foreign language acquisition, but mostly for teaching the value and scientific implications regarding degrees of certainty and objectivity in academic writing to undergraduate students as well as science writers from different disciplines (ESP). By using and adapting these epistemic markers of author commitment Darwin also entered into a dialogue with his readers, cautiously drawing them into the acceptation of his novel and controversial ideas, for instance, by means of mental predicates such as “I am doubtfully inclined to believe"?. In addition to expressing author commitment, modality markers thus also serve the purpose of engaging the reader in a dialogue, as Hyland (2005) points out. The corpus data for analysing modal epistemic shifts are based on the Online Variorum of Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This Variorum offers an aligned representation of the six British editions of the account written by Darwin, covering the time span between 1859 and 1872. The analysis will cover chapter four, which presents the theory of natural selection. A systemic-functional approach will be used, following Halliday (1994) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004). This approach includes expressions of epistemic modality from different word classes, viz. mental state predicates (e.g. I believe), modal auxiliaries, modal adverbs (cf. also Hoye 1997) and modal adjectives. The methodology for the analysis involves listing epistemic shifts between the six different subsequent versions respectively, as well as a comparison of the original and final versions. The latter finding will yield an indication of the general evolution in the author’s commitment to his scientific ideas. In order to evaluate this the following factors will form the basis of a formulaic assessment: degree of probability (7 degrees), degree of objectivity as a factor of implicit versus explicit modality and objective versus subjective modality. The overall degree of certainty will be assessed as the result of the former degrees of probability and objectivity. It is expected that the overall epistemic shift will show an increasingly more confident author, as tentative and subjective scientific ideas receive a more objective and certain rendering (e.g. “some species might become extinct"? (1859: 81) cp. “some species will probably become extinct"? (1872). References Algoet, B. (2008). Two Dutch Translations of Charles Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’: expressions of epistemic modality in chapter four. Unpublished Masters Dissertartion. Hogeschool Gent. Brisset, A. (2002) ‘Clémence Royer, ou Darwin en colère’ (Clémence Royer, or an Angry Darwin), in Jean Delisle (ed.) Portraits de traductrices (Portraits of Women Translators), Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 173-203. Crismore, A. and R. Farnsworth (1989)."?Mr. Darwin and his readers: Exploring interpersonal metadiscourse as a dimension of ethos"?. Rhetoric Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Fall 1989, 91-112. Darwin, C. (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 1st edition, 1st issue. Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London/New York/Sydney/Auckland: Arnold. First published London: Arnold [1985]. Halliday, M.A.K. and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Third, Revised Edition. London: Arnold. Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: exploring interaction in writing. London / New York: Continuum. Vandepitte, S. Vandenbussche, L. and B. Algoet (2011). “Travelling Certainties: Darwin’s Doubts and Their Dutch Translations."? The Translator, Vol. 17, No. 2 . Special Issue: Science in Translation, 275-299. Corpus: Bordalejo, B. (ed.), Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing, University of Birmingham: Online Variorum: http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/index.html [accessed 2011-12-5]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".