Call for papers

Communication between experts in a field and a non-specialist audience, with or without an intermediary, is a well-established research object, particularly in the legal (Engberg et al., 2015) and scientific (Nieto-Galan, 2016, Hutchins 2020, Yuan et al. 2017) fields. In ESP, it is analyzed mainly from a linguistic perspective (Pic and Furmaniak 2014), with the aim of comparing these discourses with more specialized ones aimed at experts (Picton 2018, Fries 2016), or to better understand how these discourses function in themselves (Isani 2009, Domenec 2017) and their usefulness in training future specialists in a field (Biros and Fries 2021). This conference aims to revisit this type of communication, known as mediation discourse, in order to further explore its definition and define its place within specialized languages.

The term “mediation” is preferred here to “popularization” as the latter has had negative connotations since the 19th century (Rassi 2001) and is based on a model in which the expert is perceived as possessing knowledge that he or she disseminates to a lay audience (Bucchi & Trench 2014). Mediation is rather seen as a circulation of knowledge, based on the integration of specialized content into the everyday experience of the public (Turnbull, 2018) or into contexts that sometimes greatly differ from the context in which the content was produced. 

This conference aims to explore the mediation of specialized discourse as interdiscursive recontextualization. By recontextualization, we mean the reformulation and recreation of meaning across and between different genres and types of discourse (Linell, 1998; Calsamiglia 2003). Texts or genres produced for mediation are the result of interdiscursive recontextualization: compared to specialized discourse in the same field, they have a different social function, which is achieved through a new communication context, whose frame of reference is defined by the original source discourse (Linell, 1998; Zimina-Poirot et al., 2025). As Gotti suggests :

According to this new approach, popularization is thus not just seen as a category of texts, but as a recontextualization process that implies relevant changes in the roles taken on by the actors and institutions involved, and their degree of authoritativeness (Gotti 2014: 23)

Thus, a scientific mediation text is characterized by its hybrid nature, since it transfers information related to the specialized field, its terminology, its actors, and its culture, while serving one or more new functions, which may be purely informational, but also procedural (explaining how to do something), argumentative (legitimizing), or promotional. It also involves the intervention of new actors and new types of expertise that are not based on traditional paths to expert status, but on one’s experience of scientific or specialized issues that legitimizes their participation in scientific debate (Bucchi & Trench 2014). 

Finally, it is important to include the concept of multimodality in this definition of recontextualization. The reformulation of specialized discourse involves not only textual but also nonverbal transformations, and sometimes operates on a completely different semiotic level, particularly the audiovisual level, as we shall see.        

This conference aims to bring together proposals around three axes.

Axis 1 - Linguistic and discursive forms of mediation

This axis focuses on the description of mediation discourse, particularly the packaging of information induced by the process of recontextualization. It aims to characterize several types of mediation discourse from a perspective that may be comparative and focus on how knowledge produced in a specialized context is rephrased to adapt to different contexts, or with a view to describing mediation discourse without reference to the source discourse.

The characterization of mediation discourse may adopt a linguistic perspective, in particular, but not exclusively, based on corpus linguistics methods. The perspective may also be discursive and focus, for example, on textual genres, on the discourse communities involved, or on the situation of communication. Finally, proposals may adopt a multimodal perspective to highlight how different modes of communication can be combined to adapt to different situations of mediation.

These descriptive elements may ultimately prompt reflection on the status of mediation discourses in relation to specialized discourses, particularly with regard to their degree of specialization in comparison with the discourses from which they originate, or to their own specialized status as discourses produced by professional or disciplinary fields.

Axis 2 – Mediation in the face of digital and professional transformations

Proposals in this axis may examine the transformation of specialized knowledge mediation brought about by the advent of digital technology and recently accelerated by social networks and generative artificial intelligence. This axis invites reflection on the following question: how do new media and multimedia forms contribute to the dissemination and recontextualization of specialized knowledge?

The use of AI-based chatbots as a tool to simplify and summarize specialized texts has been explored in several languages in the medical (Ayre et al., 2023), legal and administrative (Nozza, D., & Attanasio) fields. It has also been shown that more and more users use these tools as search engines or to obtain information on technical issues, particularly health problems. Chatbots based on large language models have recently been developed to respond to user queries about their health (Potter, 2026).

These technological transformations invite us to examine the various digital modes and media that can be used to mediate specialized content (videos, podcasts, infographics, publications, tweets) in a growing number of digital spaces, such as social networks (Instagram, Twitter, TikTok) or chatbots powered by large language models.

These changes also fuel and continue to question the processes of professionalization of specialists and the possibility for people whose expertise has not been recognized by traditional institutions to disseminate specialized content and discourse. Proposals may, in particular, examine the construction of the discursive voice of “pro-am” specialists who, according to Adenot (2016), explain and simplify specialized knowledge by adopting the point of view of an amateur in order to strengthen their proximity to their audiences.

Axis 3 – Mediation of specialized discourse: accessibility and educational challenges

This axis invites exploration of the diversity of audiences that may be targeted by mediation content, as well as the diversity of semiotic forms used to make specialized fields and cultures accessible.

Proposals in this area may focus on the use of fiction, whether written or audiovisual, as a teaching aid in ESP courses. Contributions could thus extend studies that have examined the impact of using television series in specialized English courses, for example to develop the oral skills and intercultural knowledge needed for consultations in medical training (Carnet, 2020) or in science and technology. Similarly, contributions may examine discourse relating to various specialized fields, such as climate (Thévenon, 2025).

This axis also invites examination of the audiences concerned by mediation, in particular how specialized discourse can be adapted differently depending on whether content is written or created for adults, children, or people with low literacy or cognitive disabilities (Zimina-Poirot et al., 2025).

Finally, this theme focuses on mediation as a gateway to knowledge about social and economic issues that are crucial for the 21st century. Contributions may analyze the circulation of knowledge between actors and recipients of law and justice, and specialists and organizations explaining topics with high social stakes, such as gender-based violence and the climate crisis.

 

List of references

Adenot, P. 2016. « Les pro-am de la vulgarisation scientifique : de la co-construction de l’ethos de l’expert en régime numérique. » Itinéraires. Littérature, textes, cultures, no 2015-3.

Ayre, J., O. Mac, K. McCaffery, B. R. McKay, M. Liu, Y. Shi, and A. G. Dunn. 2023. « New Frontiers in Health Literacy: Using ChatGPT to Simplify Health Information for People in the Community. » Journal of General Internal Medicine: 1–5.

Biros, Camille, and Marie-Hélène Fries. 2021. « L’évaluation des compétences langagières à travers le prisme des genres spécialisés en anglais de spécialité : Evaluating Language Competences through Specialised Genres in English for Specific Purposes. » ASp 79: 49–74. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.7004.

Bucchi, Massimiano, and Brian Trench, eds. 2014. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. 2nd ed. Routledge International Handbooks. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203483794.

Calsamiglia, Helena. 2003. « Popularization Discourse. » Discourse Studies 5 (2): 139–46.

Carnet, A. 2020. L’utilisation de séries télévisées pour l’enseignement/apprentissage de la communication pour la consultation médicale. Doctoral diss., Université de Lorraine.

Domenec, Fanny. 2017. « Légitimer des technologies controversées : le rôle croissant des spécialistes et des scientifiques dans la communication d’entreprise en ligne. » ASp 71: 93–121. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4951.

Engberg, Jan. 2021. « Legal Translation as Communication of Knowledge: On the Creation of Bridges. » Parallèles 33 (1): 6–17.

Engberg, Jan, Silvia Cacchiani, Karin Luttermann, and Chiara Preite. 2015. « Popularization and Knowledge Mediation in the Legal Field. » In Multilingualism in Specialized Communication: Challenges and Opportunities in the Digital Age, 84.

Faury, Mélanie. 2017. Pour des médiateurs réflexifs – Du discours de la médiation… à l’interrogation de l’acte même de “vulgariser” la science. L’infusoir.

Fries, Marie-Hélène. 2016. Nanomonde et nouveau monde, quelques métaphores clés sur les nanotechnologies aux États-Unis. Grenoble: ELLUG.

Gotti, Maurizio. 2014. « Reformulation and Recontextualization in Popularization Discourse. » Ibérica 27: 15–34.

Hutchins, Jessica A. 2020. « Tailoring Scientific Communications for Audience and Research Narrative. » Current Protocols Essential Laboratory Techniques 20 (1): e40. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpet.40.

Isani, Shaeda. 2009. Journalism FASP & Fictional Representations of Journalists in Popular Contemporary Literature.

Linell, Per. 1998. « Discourse across Boundaries: On Recontextualizations and the Blending of Voices in Professional Discourse. » Text & Talk 18 (2): 143–58.

Nieto-Galan, Agustí. 2016. Science in the Public Sphere: A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. London: Routledge.

Nozza, Debora, and Giuseppe Attanasio. 2023. « Is It Really That Simple? Prompting Language Models for Automatic Text Simplification in Italian. » In CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

Pic, Elsa, and Grégory Furmaniak. 2014. « Impact du lectorat visé sur la grammaire : Bilan du projet “Sensibilité de la grammaire anglaise au degré de spécialisation” (SGADS). » ASp 65: 69–86. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.4199.

Picton, Aurélie. 2018. « Terminologie outillée et diachronie : éléments de réflexion autour d’une réconciliation : Textual Terminology and Diachrony: Reflections about a Reconciliation. » ASp, no. 74 (November): 27–52. https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.5255.

Potter, L. 2026. « OpenAI’s ChatGPT Health: Changing the Face of Patient Care? » Healthcare Digital, January 19. https://healthcare-digital.com/news/openai-chatgpt-health-launch.

Thévenon, M. 2025. « The Pedagogical Potential of Environmental Dystopia in the ESP Classroom: Using “Cli-Fi” with Science Students. » ASp 87. http://journals.openedition.org/asp/9837. https://doi.org/10.4000/13pof.

Turnbull, J. 2018. Communicating and recontextualizing legal advice online in English. In Popularization and knowledge mediation in the law. Popularisierung und Wissensvermittlung im Recht, 201-222. Sous la direction de Engberg, Jan, Karin Luttermann, and Silvia Cacchiani. LIT Verlag Münster.

Yuan, Shupei, Tsuyoshi Oshita, Niveen AbiGhannam, Anthony Dudo, John C. Besley, and Hyeseung E. Koh. 2017. « Two-Way Communication between Scientists and the Public: A View from Science Communication Trainers in North America. » International Journal of Science Education, Part B 7 (4): 341–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789.

Zimina-Poirot, M., Christopher Gledhill, and M. Bouyé. 2025. « Towards Clear, Simple, and Inclusive Legal Language: Exploring Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) Models as Content Rephrasing Assistants in Multilingual Settings. » International Journal of Language & Law (JLL) 14: 143–73.

 

Submissions

Proposals for papers, limited to 300 words, must be submitted in an anonymous file and include:

- the title of the paper

- the research context and/or a brief state of the art

- the methodology used

- the results, if applicable

- 5 key bibliographic references (not included in the 300 words).

Please add a brief bio-bibliographical note in a separate file.

The conference languages are English and French.

 

Schedule

Submission deadline: June 15, 2026

Notification of acceptance: September 1, 2026

Registration opens: January 

Contact

If you have any questions, please contact remedi@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr