Features of modern popular science discourse

Gavrish Alesya Dmitrievna ORCID: 0000-0002-4791-5852 PhD in Philology Senior Lecturer, Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Volgograd Institute of Management – branch of RANEPA 400078, Russia, Volgograd region, Volgograd, Herzen str., 10, room 407 prostozachem@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Gulyaeva Evgeniya Vyacheslavovna ORCID: 0000-0003-1605-8576 PhD in Philology Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Volgograd Institute of Management – branch of RANEPA 400078, Russia, Volgograd region, Volgograd, Herzen str., 10, room 407 guevgenia@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Kompaneeva Liudmila Gennadievna ORCID: 0000-0001-8328-013X PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Volgograd Institute of Management – branch of RANEPA 400078, Russia, Volgograd region, Volgograd, Herzen str., 10, room 407 kompaneyeva@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. The modern understanding of popular science discourse is that this type of discourse is at the junction of journalistic and scientific styles and is aimed primarily at popularizing scientific research among a wide audience ^[1]. Popular science discourse has a unique set of features and verbal behavioral models that are of particular interest to linguists ^{[2, p.763]}; ^{[3, p.1813]}; ^[4]. It can be noted that there is a fairly large-scale request from the mass audience for information based on the use of scientific and methodological principles. Part of the audience wants to receive information in the most accessible form concerning those areas of knowledge in which it does not have a sufficient level of competence. There are various options for submitting this kind of information, including in the form of popular science literature published on paper. We believe that printed media use psychological patterns of distribution of attention of the readership.

The purpose of the work. In this study, we analyze modern popular science literature in order to study the peculiarities of vocabulary and style of presentation of information. The objectives of the research are to identify undeclared implicit discursive elements and features of the translation of popular scientific information in modern paper sources. Another task is to analyze the features of the methodology for submitting popular science information.  

Materials and methods of research. Paper media were chosen as the source of the research material, namely, 6 printed books of relatively large volume (total number of conventional printed sheets: 196.6). The sources of the material were the following books: "Plasticity of the brain" by Doidja N. ^[5], "Are scientists hiding? Myths of the XXI century" Sokolova A.B. ^[6], "Pseudoscience" Podymova L.I. ^[7], "The heart of the machine. Our future in the era of emotional artificial intelligence" Jonka R. ^[8], "Secrets of the brain. Why we believe in everything" by Shermera M. ^[9], "The Future of Reason" by Kaku M. ^[10]. The books of popular science content analyzed by us have good printing design and, in most cases, illustrations. It should be noted that all the books were purchased in bookstores of the city of Volgograd, were positioned as belonging to the genre of popular science literature and stood on the appropriate shelves. The selection of books was carried out by random sampling.

As for the research methodology, when analyzing sufficiently large texts, we used a set of modern methods of linguistic text analysis. When selecting illustrative material, we used the continuous sampling method ^{[11, pp.157-63]} to reveal the semantic content of some key terms, we used methods of definitional and lexico-semantic analysis. Next, we conducted an interpretive analysis of the selected material, based on the procedure of linguistic analysis of the text developed by A. N. Baranov. We paid special attention to the interpretation of the semantics of the text ^{[12, p.7]}, the differentiation of implicit and explicit information ^{[12, p.17, 40]}, the identification of manipulative technologies associated, for example, with the imposition of presupposition by the addressee ^{[12, p.176]}. The elements of critical analysis of discourse were used by us to analyze not only the text itself, but also to analyze the visual and figurative component of printed publications and to identify cause-and-effect relationships in the texts ^{[13, pp.95-121]}; ^[14].

It should be noted that the paper media analyzed by us are designed for the operation of specific methods of obtaining information ^{[15, pp.85-94]}; ^[16]. Among these methods, I would like to emphasize that reading a book is, as a rule,: an individualized process, which, given the volume of the source, will almost inevitably be discrete. It also has a vector of information delivery: from the formal beginning to the formal end of the printed text. Individual parts of the text are designed as logically complete, and the actual end of the narrative should cause a certain desirable state in the addressee, produce some effect on him associated with the satisfaction of emotional and cognitive needs.

The results of the study and their discussion. Below are the statistical calculations obtained by us as a result of the analysis, which, in our opinion, are of particular interest and need more in-depth consideration and explanation. Before that, we consider it necessary to clarify some points. The information about the author of the book contained in the book itself is, in our opinion, significant, since the reader determines the degree of scientific source, including on it. The presence of an incorrect subject-name index can create incorrect ideas about the structure of information in the reader, so we paid attention to this fact. Analyzing the lexical diversity of texts, we noted some lexical units (including terms), which, on the one hand, are able to implicitly expand the problematic, and on the other hand, introduce a specific color, create the possibility of attracting information that is outside of the general content. These lexical units gently introduce partial ideological content and create a recognizable accentuation of the source vocabulary. In the future, we will indicate some of these lexical units with a count of the number of their mentions in the text. In addition, in popular science texts there are a large number of proper names, one way or another related to the scientific process. When analyzing the factual material, we revealed the relatively frequent use of some names, in our opinion, not always unambiguously determined by the obvious needs of the text itself (in a more detailed description of the results of the analysis, we will indicate some of the proper names). In terms of modern popular science discourse, there is a certain realized tendency to mythologize the activities of real personalities. We found terminological constructs containing a mythologized emotionally colored semantic component ("Darwin's button", "neural Darwinism", "Einstein's brain", "Darwin's golden rule", "old man Darwin"). It is interesting that there is even a 2015 TV series called "Friends of Super Scientists", the main characters of which are Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Nikola Tesla, Sigmund Freud ^[17]. In statistical calculations, we presented data on the frequency of occurrence in the text of such proper names as Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein. Also, for these names, we have indicated the number of cross-references, by which we mean the presence of names in the text on one page. In addition, we noted the references in the text to the products of American mass media and mass media associated with them (including cinematographic products) due to the fact that these mentions are used by the authors of books as an argumentative base and illustrative material, and are almost always positioned as well-known information.

So, let's present some statistical calculations obtained from the analysis of the book "Secrets of the brain. Why we believe in everything." The publication is positioned as a popular science publication, the author of the book is "a historian and popularizer of science, an associate professor at the University of Clermont" ^[9]. Topics covered: sociology, philosophy, astronomy, psychology, psychiatry, history, political science, Biblical studies, theology, biology, genetics, so-called sexology, neurobiology, physics, ethology, religious studies, zoology, zoopsychology, geography. There is a subject index in the book. The text contains the following number of references identified by us: "Darwin" ? 24 (on pages 252-4); "Freud" ? 2; "Einstein" ? 43 (on pages 274-8). Cross references: "Darwin" and "Einstein" ? 1 on page 309. Frequency lexical units were also identified: "September 11" ? 55; "CIA" ? 7; "USA" ? 29; "US Navy" ? 4; "Iraq" -7. The lexical composition includes, among other things, brand names: "Oxford University press"; militarized vocabulary: "World War II", "FBI", "Iraqi prisoners of war". Fixed names of films and other mass media products: the series "X-files", "My dinner with Andre", "Mind Games", "Deep Throat", "Twilight Zone", "Beyond the Possible", "Incredible!", "Sixth Sense", "Poltergeist", "A bargaining chip", "The Spirit of the Times", cartoon "Simpsons", "All of me", "Freaky Friday", "Big", "From 13 to 30", TV series "Newlyweds", TV show "Larry King Show", TV series "Free to choose", "Harry Potter", "The Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", "Avatar", "Star Trek", the TV series "Politically Incorrect".

Some statistical calculations obtained from the analysis of the book "The Heart of the machine. Our future in the era of emotional artificial intelligence" ^[8]. The publication is positioned as a popular science publication. The author is a futurist, programmer-analyst. The book contains acknowledgements to academic scientists. Topics covered: neurophysiology, psychiatry, human physiology, biology, genetics, anthropology, paleoanthropology, psychology, sociology, computer science, philosophy, physics, so-called sexology, sexopathology, linguistics. There is a subject-nominal index, there are no names in it. Darwin, Z. Freud and A. Einstein. The text contains the following number of references identified by us: "Darwin" ? 13 (among them: 3 on page 354, "neo?Darwinian views" - 1, "Darwin's button" ? 5); "Freud" ? 1; "USA" - 25 (including: "US Department of Defense" ? 5, "DOD USA" ? 2, "United States" -2); "Iraq" ? 3; "NASA" ? 2. On pages 131-135 there is a detailed storyline dedicated to the US military actions in Iraq. On pages 227-228, a combination of abbreviations "US Secret Service, CIA, FBI" is given.  In general, we can note the presence of a large amount of militarized vocabulary in the book. The lexical composition includes, among others, numerous brand names and other proper names: "Royal Dutch Shell", "Intel", "Microsoft", "Windows", "Bank of America", "Pepsi", "Google", "Apple", "Facebook", "Toyota", "Yamaha", "Nokia", "Gibson". The names of films and other mass media products mentioned in the text are recorded: "Terminator", "Jurassic Park", "Star Wars", "The Mystery of the Red Planet", "Back to the Future", "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Polar Express", "Beowulf", "Christmas Story", "Ex Machina", "She", "Artificial Intelligence", the quiz show "Take a Chance!".

Some statistical calculations obtained from the analysis of the book "Plasticity of the brain" ^[5]. This book is positioned as a leisure publication, when it was sold it was on the shelf among books that belong to popular science. The author is a doctor of medicine, psychiatrist, researcher at the Center for Psychoanalytic Learning and Research at Columbia University in New York and the Faculty of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto. The book contains thanks to medical scientists and other scientists. Topics covered: medicine, psychology, psychiatry, neurology, so-called sexology, sexopathology, primatology, history, political science, neurophysiology, neuropsychology, archeology. There is no subject-nominal index. The text contains the following number of references identified by us: "Freud" ? 76 (including, on pages 362 – 6, pp. 363 ? 6, pp. 364 ? 4, pp.365-5, pp.366 ? 6); "Darwin" ? 10 (including "neural Darwinism" -1). Cross references to Ch . Darwin and Z. We met Freud on pages 298 and 466. "USA" ? 10 (including, "US Air Force" ? 2, "United States" ? 2, "USA" ? 1). On page 432 there is a detailed story dedicated to the US Air Force. The lexical composition includes, among others, brand names and other proper names: "Playboy", "Porshe"; media names "CNN"; militarized vocabulary: "Vietnam War", "American troops", "World War II"; historical facts and terms provoking a negative perception of history USSR: "Sardinism", "GULAG"; literary works: "Lolita" by V.V. Nabokov, a series of books "Baby-Sitters Club".

Some statistical calculations obtained from the analysis of the book "The Future of Reason". The author is a professor of theoretical physics, teaches at New York City College, also works at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and at New York University ^[10]. Topics covered: physics, astronomy, biology, neurophysiology, genetics, physiology, neurobiology, psychology, genetics, medicine, history, psychiatry, anthropology, astronomy. There is a subject-nominal index, however, it does not contain the name of Ch. Darwin. The reference to A. Einstein is located in the section of the letter "M" of the subject-nominal index ("Einstein's brain"). The text contains the following number of references identified by us: "Einstein" ? 61 (including, on pages 17 ? 5, on pages 189 ? 7, on pages 190 ? 9); "Darwin" ? 9; "Freud" -7. Cross-references: Ch. Darwin and Z. Freud:1 on page 318; C. Darwin and A. Einstein ? 1 on page 191. "USA" is mentioned 43 times (including, "US Army" ? 5 times, "US Air Force" – 4, "US Navy" and "US Navy" 1 each); "Pentagon" ? 7 mentions; "CIA" ? 10; "NASA" – 15. On pages 121 and 122 there is a detailed plot dedicated to the US military operations in the Middle East. The lexical composition includes, among others, brand names and other proper names: "Microsoft", "Windows", "Pentium", "IBM"; media names "New York Times", "YouTube", "Washington Post"; there is a large amount of militarized vocabulary: "Vietnam War", "The Korean War", as many as 17 mentions of the abbreviation "DARPA" (the Agency for advanced Defense Research and Development of the United States), "Iraq and Afghanistan".  We also met historical facts and terms that provoke a negative perception of the history of the USSR: "the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant", "storage of Soviet missiles". Fixed names of films and other mass media products: "Forbidden Planet", "Matrix", "Star Trek", "Iron Man", "Surrogates", "Avatar", "Fantastic Journey", "X-Men", "Star Wars", "Remember Everything", "The Bourne Identity", "Men in Black", "Charlie", "Rain Man", "Planet of the Apes", "Rise of the Planet of the Apes", "The Beginning", "Independence Day", "Twilight Zone", "Flying Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "True Lies", "Getting to Know the Fockers", "Dissenting opinion", "Mind Games", "Artificial Intelligence", "2001:space Odyssey", "Terminator", "Exorcist", "Star Trek", "Earth vs. Flying Saucers", TV show "Doogie Howser".

Some statistical calculations obtained from the analysis of the book "Are scientists hiding? Myths of the XXI century". The author "graduated with honors from St. Petersburg State University with a degree in applied mathematics, a scientific journalist, a teacher" ^[6]. Topics covered: biology, anthropology, genetics, history, linguistics, sociology, archeology, political science, zoopsychology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, theology, ethnography, dietetics. There is no subject-name index. The text contains the following number of references identified by us: "Einstein" ? 10; "Darwin" ? 36 (of which 7 are found on page 117); "Freud" ? 1. Cross references: A. Einstein and Z. Freud – 1 on page 40; C. Darwin and A. Einstein ? 4 on pages 82, 101, 126 and 135. The following abbreviations are also found in the book: "CIA" ? 1 mention, "USA" ? 14, "NASA" – 2 and militarized vocabulary: "Pentagon" ? 3, "Iraq" ? 8 (including "the US war with Iraq" ? 1, "America's losses in Iraq" ? 2). The lexical composition includes, among other things, the name of the brand "Google" (7 mentions); the name of the media: the journal "Nature" ? 10; the name of the social network "Facebook *" (* the activity of this social network is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation) and the online video platform "Youtube". We also met historical facts and terms that provoke a negative perception of the history of the USSR, which are reflected in the following lexical units: "the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan", "Stalin and Hitler". The recorded names of films and other mass media products: "Star Wars", "The Matrix", "Space Odyssey", "Night at the Museum", "The Last Neanderthal", the series "X-files".

Some statistical calculations obtained as a result of the analysis of the book "Pseudoscience" ^[7]. The author is a teacher at the Institute, positions himself as an academic scientist. Topics covered: astronomy, physics, paleontology, so-called sexology, religious studies, genetics, philosophy, psychology, archaeology, medicine, anthropology, neurophysiology. There is no subject-nominal index. The text contains the following number of references identified by us: "Einstein" ? 29 (including 3 on pages 143 and 164); "Darwin" ? 42 (including 8 mentions on page 150, "old Darwin" ? 1, "Darwinism" ? 6); "Freud" ? 3. Cross references: C. Darwin and A. Einstein – 8 on pages 45,47,139,140,149,164,171,462; C. Darwin, A. Einstein and Z. Freud – 1 on page 171. "USA" is mentioned 13 times; "CIA" – 4; "NASA" ? 3; "September 11" – 4. The lexical composition includes, among other things, militarized vocabulary: "Pentagon", "DARPA" and historical facts and terms provoking negative perception of the history of the USSR: "the war in Afghanistan", "losses of Soviet troops". Also in the book there are the names of literary works: "Harry Potter", the novel "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and the names of films and other mass media products: the series "Doctor House", "Avatar", "Interstellar", the series "The Big Bang Theory".

Next, we will try to analyze the results we have obtained in more detail and identify, if possible, significant patterns of functioning of popular science discourse. The authors of the books we study seek to increase the degree of self-confidence on the part of the audience in a variety of ways. Among them are the intimization of the process of communication with the reader ^{[18, pp.483-485]}; ^[19], the use of facts from the biography of the author or his entourage in the narrative, the demonstration of proximity to officially recognized academic circles, expressed in numerous thanks to scientists, as well as the positioning of the text produced by the author as scientifically significant or, at least, comprehensively scientifically-based.

Perhaps the most characteristic phenomenon noted by us during the analysis of the material is the endowment of some lexical units (including terms) with hypersubjectivity in relation to the context and their further use in a wide variety of situations with the creation of implicit ideological pressure, as well as persistent demonstration of the universality of these lexical units. It should be noted that at the same time, in relation to our work, we understand ideology as follows: these are repetitive ways of social interaction caused by the individual's acceptance as a universal value base of fairly simple rigid emotional and cognitive constructions based on the functioning of evaluation schemes "good-bad" or "acceptable-not acceptable". The priorities of the argumentation system of any ideology consist of a small number of openly declared universal principles ^{[20, pp.13-24]}. We regard the appearance of lexical units (including terms) endowed with hypersubjectivity in texts as one of the most important signs indicating the presence of ideological components in the author's intentions.  In the analyzed material, we can identify some elements of ideological constructions that are structural components of a hybrid ideology based on universal relativism, uncritically idealizing a part of scientific methodology. All this in the analyzed texts is often not directly related to the stated problems and is formatted into special emotional and cognitive blocks, often replacing cognitive components with easily realized emotional potential of the text. In the analyzed material, ideological components are not marked and are not distinguished by easily recognizable specific elements, as is usually the case within the framework of the functioning of ideology.

We believe that in popular scientific texts, a broad scientific-like (including with partial involvement of the scientific methodology itself) information base is often produced, directly or indirectly related to hypersubjective lexical units. This is also achieved by the creation and subsequent exploitation of local and, as a rule, incorrect redundant interdisciplinary connections. When analyzing the texts, we found several patterns concerning the distribution of lexical units endowed with hypersubjectivity in the "body" of the text. The first regularity: their fairly uniform distribution, incongruous with the sequence of development of the content part. The second pattern consists in concentration, concentration of the maximum number of lexical units endowed with hypersubjectivity, including terms per unit of text, and thus creating a visually perceived graphic (iconic) density.

We also drew attention to the fact that in almost all the sources analyzed by us there is no consistent philosophical understanding of the stated issues.  The texts do not even mention that such an understanding is possible, necessary and an integral part of the scientific process. However, in these texts there is a non-obvious discourse-forming teleology, which is a tool for the soft promotion of meaning-forming and partly ideologically conditioned ways of understanding the most diverse factual. Paradigmatic reference points (confluence of meanings) are formed in the texts, which create and stimulate the further construction of simple scientific schemes "by analogy". The reduction of options for scientific understanding and the stereotyping of such options cannot do without silence and ignoring the "inconvenient" factual.

During the analysis, we found numerous ways of such operations with information from the addressee, which are difficult to call correct. Let 's describe some of them:

1. The presence of reduced argumentation with unjustified involvement of third-party axiomatics and the extension of the argumentation base to the interdisciplinary interface. 

2. The basic axiomatics underlying scientific theories is omitted by the addressee, is not involved or ignored. The illusion of the existence of a self-sufficient and self-reproducing objective scientific reality is created, which determines the axiology of any processes, including social ones.

3. Using a primitivized argumentation designed for an amateur philistine level: "Evolution is a slow process, you need to live hundreds of thousands of years to see it" ^{[6, p. 253]}; "With such an assessment, even in our Milky Way there should be at least 200 thousand habitable planets (one millionth multiplied by 200 billion)" ^{[7, p.371]}; "Since then, scientists have been able to estimate the number of developed civilizations in the Galaxy much more accurately" ^{[10, p.423]}; "Evolution is characterized by conservatism ..." ^{[5, p.356]}; "Studies have shown that more frequent and targeted throwing of excrement indicated a higher intelligence of the observed chimpanzees. Although such behavior is severely condemned in modern human society, it was probably one of the usual communicative practices of ancient people. Now we have a motivator!" ^{[8, p.38-39]}; "Evolution is smarter than science" ^{[9, p.472]}.

4. Omission of existing scientifically significant connections and patterns, or such an interpretation of them that does not conflict with the information certainty produced in the text. Sometimes the argumentation is deployed in the text in such a way that the basic principles on the basis of which this argumentation exists in publicly available sources are kept silent. For example, there are standards of the American Psychological Association, the use of which is mandatory for psychologists-members of the association: "Psychological tests and other research methods, the value of which partly depends on the ignorance of the subject, are not reproduced and are not described in popular publications in a way that may invalidate the research method itself. Access to such studies is limited to those people who are professionally interested in them and guarantee their safe use" ^{[21, pp. 56-60]}. Thus, a significant part of the results of the work of psychologists-members of the American Association, published in popular science discourse, turns out to be simply invalid.

5. Distracting information redundancy ^{[22, pp.57-61]}, associated, among other things, with the informal division of the text by the readership. As researchers, we consider this as one of the author's deliberately created ways of dividing the text. A combination of formal and informal text division is created, which can be used for manipulative purposes. It can be noted that information overload exploits what we understand as the "effect of transdisciplinary trust" ? the construction by the addressee of an apparently consistent system using elements of scientific knowledge from different branches of science, with the withdrawal of meaningful information from the action of the necessary formal rules of scientific methodology. This effect, in our opinion, consists in the fact that an undeclared hierarchical system of near-scientific (and sometimes pseudoscientific) universal, including ideologically conditioned constructions, representing insufficiently substantiated (or only emotionally conditioned) simplest chains of cause-and-effect relationships is created.

6. The scale of the problems covered and the spread of disciplines, forming a kind of systemic perception of information in the reader, as a result of which a very specific worldview may arise. In such a worldview and worldview, the prioritization depends on the imposed dominant perception of information (this dominant can be quite simple, or even primitive). As a result of reading, the audience does not have an aversion to the relatively insignificant ideological components of the text precisely because of the breadth of the spread of knowledge involved as arguments, in which they are organically included. A simplified worldview and attitude is masked by a pile of information gleaned from a wide variety of disciplines.

Among other things, when analyzing popular science texts, we noted a phenomenon that could be designated as the "effect of anticipatory awareness". Ignoring and keeping silent about inconvenient information is a fairly effective technique. However, in modern conditions of digital technology development, it is difficult to implement it, since the information gap can be spontaneously filled when the audience uses the most unexpected sources. Probably, that is why modified and minimized "inconvenient information" is introduced into popular science texts in such a way that it does not create undesirable discursive connections (does not appeal to such), but would gravitate to already existing, more preferable from the point of view of the addressee. In the popular science literature analyzed by us, a significant part of the meaning-forming concepts and semantic dominants rely precisely on the effect of anticipatory awareness. In general, we could define it as the introduction of relatively undesirable information into the text by the addressee in such a way that undesirable discursive connections are alternately minimized or suppressed, and the addressee's need to identify or establish the presence of such connections is significantly reduced.

We should also add that numerous references to the products of American mass media and mass media associated with them, including references to feature films, are generally used in the texts we analyze as well-known information and often act as a kind of authoritative source. The appeal to such mass media products is made according to the same schemes as the appeal to arrays of significant information and becomes contextually active, serves as an auxiliary tool for building argumentation chains.

Conclusions. Thus, the results obtained during the analysis of the factual material allowed us to draw the following conclusions. The teleology of the process of broadcasting information does not always meet the goals declared by the authors, positioning the source as popular science. The authors of the books widely use effective ways of influencing a mass audience, which are more characteristic of political discourse. Examples of such methods include the following:

1) intense information pressure, determined by both a wide range of topics and redundancy of information;

2) unjustified detailing;

3) ignoring and silencing the "inconvenient" part of the information flow;

4) embedding ideologically conditioned elements into the information flow;

5) intimization of the information submission process.

In the sources analyzed by us, the religious worldview is shown in the form of disparate, contradictory, inconsistent parts that create an incorrect idea of objective reality. The religious worldview is portrayed as naive and is clearly opposed to science as a whole. The "scientific approach" declared by the authors consists, among other things, of a consistent rejection of the religious and philosophical understanding of reality. 

The presence of the effects of "anticipatory awareness" and "transdisciplinary confidence" highlighted by us allows us to reasonably assume the presence of complex undeclared patterns of text construction. The creation of an emotional background, coupled with hypercritical ways of understanding "inconvenient" information, may entail a potential rejection of such information by the addressee in the future. Within the framework of popular science discourse, such rejection seems to us very likely. The existence of hypersubjective lexical units, including terms, can be regarded as an element of implicit ideological pressure on the audience, and the opposition of scientific and religious worldviews can be regarded as part of a global liberal?relativistic discourse seeking to displace the system of traditional values and replace it with ideological constructs using formatted elements of scientific methodology as an argumentation base.

Possible prospects for the study are to conduct a similar analysis of other sources ? carriers of popular scientific information in order to identify the patterns we have identified in them. Attempts to determine the goal-setting of the use of ideological components in popular science discourse may be interesting.