Language expression of the argumentative framework “from popular opinion vs from expert opinion” in the text of popular science article

The paper discusses argumentation in popular science articles written by scholars. The authors focus on argumentative framework, which is presented by opposition of an expert’s judgment (argument from expert opinion) and a common, “naive” view (one from popular opinion). The framework consists of a thesis being opposed (by a subject of common sense); its authorization marker; an opposing structural constant / propositional connective; an expert’s thesis; its authorization marker; general conclusion. In summary, this paper argues that the elements of the argumentative framework can be explicit, implicit, or be presented grammatically. Text analysis of popular science articles leads to the following conclusions. (1) The opposed thesis and opposing link are typically explicit. (2) The subject of common sense can be represented by lexical and syntactic expressions of indefinite-personality, impersonality together with unreal mood and epistemic modality of uncertain knowledge (One would think…; smth may seem…; many noticed that…) etc. (3) An expert’s thesis, as a rule, is presented as a negation of the opposed statement. (4) An authorization marker of the expert’s opinion is consistently implicit. The reason is that an expert writes the entire text (except for parts with authorization markers), and in this case the additional expression of this fact is optional. (5) Normally, the general conclusion is the same as the expert’s thesis, therefore it is rarely if ever explicit.