The Whitehead Preserve in Little Compton, Rhode Island, was a beautiful, well maintained trail that wonderfully meandered through a forested wetland. The most difficult part of hiking the trail was finding it, as the Dundery Brook Trail is located behind a tennis court in Veteran’s Field Park. Walking up to the path, the boardwalk began right at the tree line, and offered a smooth transition from the cement in the park. The boardwalk was impressively built and maintained, with solid wood and a lip around the edges to prevent people with wheelchairs or strollers from falling off the side. In areas where the boardwalk traveled over water, this wooden lip became a chest-high wire fence, with a wood railing to support the hiker. Along the trail were numerous benches, where one could sit back and relax amongst the birdsong and frogs. A great surprise was a branch in the path that went over a pond, ending in a small, gazebo-like landing where one could sit for a while.
Blanche’s Path, which began where Dundery Brook Trail ended, is a grass path circling Bumblebee Pond. Because of the recent rain, and it being on a wetland, it was muddy in some areas, with hiking boots greatly recommended. Here there were many paired-off ducks swimming amongst the reeds, and if I stepped too close to the pond’s edge, little fish would scatter and disturb the surface. The trees around the pond had begun to bud but were very early in the process. Most of the other plant life was still dormant, but I imagine that that field would bloom beautifully with wildflowers. I was unfortunately not able to walk Hope’s path, as the ground was far too muddy, as it had rained the day before. The path is well known for the flowers that grow along it, so I would like to visit again when I can see that. The mud, however, allowed me to see many animal tracks, such as raccoon, and fur that was most likely from a coyote. Overall, even though I did not see much wildlife, the evidence for its presence and the high quality of the walk itself is enough for me to want to go back. The well-maintained boardwalk makes travel through such an environment possible for all, and the well-covered environment is aesthetically pleasing. For such a short hike, it offers plenty to see in terms of flora, fauna, and environmental variety, with the bonus of being walkable by anyone and everyone.
0 Comments
Please click on this link to be directed to the first draft.
https://avamastrostefano.weebly.com/blog/nature-conservancy-first-draft This particular case is relevant to the course because it specifically grapples with the problem of communication, and why being able to communicate is such an important ability when working in the sciences. The whole problem presented in the article is that there are repeated clashes by the organizers of the March for Science and what their message is with the march. By conflicting with their own previous statements, specifically on what the march stands for, the organizers received heavy backlash by proponents and critics alike, which resulted in more controversy than the organizers were intending. The goal of the march was to show the government, and general public, that people care about science, and that science is necessary for society to function, but by mixing in the priorities of other protests, such as diversity and women within science, it makes a supposedly non-political protest political.
The main course term that comes to mind in this case is that of a discourse community. In this scenario, the March For Science Twitter account tried to appeal to other discourse communities, such as the ones previously mentioned, in order to gain legitimacy and more people for the march itself. The problem with bringing in these politically charged groups in, however, is that it takes the lens away from the march being about science and the cuts the government was making, and brings attention to the groups and ideas that get people heated, and therefore less likely to listen or pay attention to the march. In this case, the discourse communities do not blend well for illustrating a non-political protest towards the government’s actions. Overall, the lesson to take from this case is to be cautious when choosing outside sources to reference, as they may carry agendas and arguments that one would not want associated with what he or she is trying to get across. For my project, I am taking statements directly from staff of the Rhode Island Nature Conservancy that have to do with the parks and trails themselves, and limiting the personal blog to my own observations coupled with quotes from the interview. By doing this, I can reinforce my honest impressions with information and history presented from the interview. In his paper, Smart studies the arguments and discourse communities surrounding the debate on global warming and climate change. Smart focuses on what resources the public has to see the professional debates and ideas, and makes the claim that a well developed blog can have more of an impact on the public sphere than a publication or mention in a well-known magazine or newspaper. This is especially true, due to how quickly a blog author can update their pages, and rapidly respond to blogs make by fellows and rivals.
The concept of discourse communities arises multiple times throughout the paper. Smart uses these communities specifically when referring to scientists that follow different branches of thought towards global warming. Additionally, the whole article revolves around “the public sphere”, which in the loosest sense is the outgroup an author or informer is trying to get the attention of and appeal to. It was very interesting that Smart brought up the varying assumptions that scientists have made in the past towards the public sphere. Some assume that the public they are appealing to are fully educated, while others assume that most of the audience has a basic grasp of science. Still yet, a majority of authors write as if the audience has no prior knowledge of the subjects discussed. Smart’s findings are almost directly related to our final project, as it is about proposing new site descriptions for the Rhode Island Nature Conservancy. These descriptions are available to anyone with an interest in hiking, so making the description stand out in some way is vital to being able to “sell” the trail or preserve. Being aware of the sphere’s wants is necessary here. Key features of the hike are the true sell, such as the flora and fauna, location, accessibility, and more. By combining these selling points with visually appealing, images gathered from the site, the designers can create a webpage that would make people want to hike that particular trail. The article I chose is “Exclusive: ‘I’ve never seen anything like it.’ Video of mating deep-sea anglerfish stuns biologists”, published in Science. It covers the discovery and reactions of scientists who happened upon a female fanfin anglerfish, which had a male freshly attached to her side. Deep sea anglerfish mate by having the male attach to the female with his mouth, and essentially he dissolves into her flesh, until only gonads remain. This was the first time a live male was found attached to a live female, with all other observations from dead female anglers, and this finding confirms many scientists’ theories on the behavior of the anglerfish.
The article began as a structured story, starting with the scientists first seeing the anglerfish, and explaining what an anglerfish is, and why seeing a live one with a mate is so important. The article then goes into the history of anglerfish research, and how the footage of this anglerfish was captured. It then went into the analysis done by other scientists, and their thoughts. At this point, the article loses the story-like structure, and dissolves into explanatory paragraphs of the differences between anglerfish sexes, more interviews with the scientists, and concludes with the diversity of anglerfish and hopeful future of deep sea exploration. The article is interesting. The footage used to begin it is beautiful and dynamic, with slow, panning, rotating shots of the female, and zoomed-in shots of the male. The story it puts together is one of wonder and mystique towards these tiny fish, and really pushes the importance of this never-before-seen behavior. The portion of the article with interviews from the scientists is the least interesting part, as the information is dry, and the scientists all state the same thing, that the anglerfish is amazing and it’s exciting to see. The information the article presents is accurate, as it is straight from the scientists who found the fish and analyzed the footage. This information, for the most part, is easy to read, but as mentioned previously, the interview portion is repetitive, and the information is not cohesively put together in that section. Otherwise, the article is easy to read and entertaining. I would most like to take the story-information blend that the author uses, as that would be most useful to “selling” the parks we will be observing. We need to be able to explain the aesthetic, environmental, and educational value of the parks, and by doing so in an easy to read and informative way, which will attract people to the physical locale. Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/exclusive-i-ve-never-seen-anything-it-video-mating-deep-sea-anglerfish-stuns-biologists The text I am analyzing is a paper put out by the Patek Lab of Duke University, where researchers studied the forces behind the punch of a Peacock Mantis Shrimp, an organism capable of throwing punches at speeds of 23 meters per second. The scientists took high speed footage of the shrimp’s punch and found that there are four main points of impact, two from the two arms, and two from the cavitation bubbles following the punches, which exceed forces up to 2500x the shrimp’s weight (see glossary for definitions).
The article begins by explaining what mantis shrimp are, how they capture prey, and the brief history of research on them. The wording is concise, with explanations given relating back to easily visualized examples, such as mantis shrimp grabbing food the same way praying mantises do. The only question within the paper is the introduction to the concluding paragraph, which underlies areas of future research, and serves to inspire questions within the reader. The word choice and phrasing makes the article relatable and interesting, which it should be if the topic involves the word “shrimp”, which most people associate with food or small subjects. The examples they use to explain topics, such as cavitation, as previously mentioned, are easy to visualize. When cavitation bubbles, essentially bubbles of vapor, collapse, they form light and heat, which is strong enough to melt holes into boat propellers when they are poorly designed. This destructive power is then associated with the shrimp’s punch, which causes the reader to make an association between the two. There are few transitions within the article, with topics being broken up by spaces between paragraphs, but not smoothly enough to facilitate a flow of ideas. Additionally, metaphor was not used at all, with alliteration being sparse, and most likely coincidental. The ending line as well is, for the most part, weak, with it being a vague summary of the findings, and draw to further research. I would like to take the language and style of explanation from the article, as it makes a foreign subject interesting and easy to understand. I would also use more alliteration than these writers did, as it makes the paper more entertaining to read, and therefore more easily processed by the readers. Link to the article: https://pateklab.biology.duke.edu/mechanics-movement-mantis-shrimp The portion of Caesar’s Last Breath we were instructed to read was an introduction to air as a concept, what it consists of, and the history and varied uses it had, in terms of natural and human.
Kean’s audience appears to be people interested in physical science, or history, who do not have a deep understanding of science, but enough to understand basic concepts. His purpose for writing the book appears to be bringing about an awareness of the space around us, due to the reverence he holds for air when describing it, and its functions throughout all of earth’s processes. This purpose is visible due to the examples he highlights throughout the section, the information he provides, and the detail he goes into his examples and the science behind the processes. Kean tells his story mainly through examples of extraordinary people and situations, or ideas not commonly considered, starting with the idea that the air all humans are currently breathing is the same air that has always existed on the planet, throughout the entire time it has existed. Every example he uses would appeal to some demographic. Those interested in war would be curious on the chlorine gas, or gardeners in the creation of artificial fertilizer. Kean touches on violence, politics, religion, and science interwoven into all of these topics, each of which would relate to any person at least at a basic level. Kean’s process of telling each story, which also covers a property or concept of gas, begins with the history of the situation he uses as an example, then delves into the chemistry involved, and concludes with the end result of the situation, and how that chemistry affects the world today. It is a format that is both easy to read and efficient in delivering the information Kean presents. If anything, it is this format that I would try to employ into the final project of observation / story, and information / logistics. When Kean visits, I would want to ask about how he chooses his examples for a topic he is examining, and how the example interacts with the subject at hand. For the first major assignment, I analyzed the similarities and differences between three articles all covering the same subject: an engineered, stingray-like robot made from mouse heart tissue, gold, and silicone gel. The articles, published in Science, Los Angeles Times, and New Scientist, offer a broad array of language, depth of analysis of the project itself, and rhetorical strategies used within their pieces, which were perfect candidates for my pursuit. Starting with the similarities in information and subject matter, I branched off into the differences of structure and vocabulary between pieces, which then shifted to changes in the appeals made by each paper. I attempted to tie in the appeals made with the structure and language of the papers, for example, Science’s piece lacked any appeal to emotion, and instead heavily focused on logical benefits and a singular moral appeal, at the very end of the piece, which also happens to be the same sentence that proposes future uses for this research and its findings. This style of writing, while convoluted in some points, made the ethicality and possibility of the future of synthetic, semi-biological machines much more powerful than the Los Angeles Times simply stating the engineers’ true intentions for the project. It is this dynamic of audience, intent, and information that I am interested in.
However, in terms of the project itself, I still need to interview the professor I contacted, and hope that through him, I may get a personal reflection of what the process is like, and what he looks for in a paper, and on what occasions would he read articles such as these. I do need to figure out how to incorporate the information I receive, most likely within the introduction and discussion sections of the paper, that would answer my original question. Additionally, I feel as though I need to delve a bit deeper into the differences in genera these articles can be categorized as, despite them all being published web articles, the differences in content and style can be enough to differentiate them. A paragraph or two more may be beneficial to add to the piece. Throughout the entire chapter, Bazerman employs every tool he outlined within the previous reading. Bazerman begins by outlining the situation and history surrounding the patents, and how Edison’s capitalization on the scoring of those patents fueled his eventual success. Bazerman’s analysis begins with the structure of the patents themselves, with a general format outlining all projects, which narrows down as the actual idea is described. This specific language ensures that the patent keeps its legitimacy as a speech act, and therefore everything it entails will be respected by the community the patent revolves around. Because Edison cornered the market before anyone else had the opportunity, his use of this speech act and genre of writing actually made him a fortune, which shows the power of knowing how to use these devices.
The most important thing to take from Bazerman’s analysis is that speech acts are all propositional in some way. Whether this proposition is a statement of a fact, which others must validate themselves, or a research paper on a never-before-studied topic, everything has a purpose behind it being spoken or written. Each paper is using the specifics of its genre, in terms of structure and language, which sets up the validity of the paper, as well as literary devices, such as logos or pathos, to justify their claims and convince their audience of their points. By being able to mimic the structure and language of well written papers, as well as twist the rhetorical ideas presented by the paper, one could further develop their own writing, at the cost of losing out on impressing the audience through a unique structure. As my initial question, “how does one take a piece written for one audience, and re-write it for another without losing the meaning of the text?” is focused on the structure, rhetorical strategies, and language used by the author for their audience. The texts I would collect for this question are scientific papers within the field of marine biology, but I would have to find them through magazine articles or online articles. If possible, I would prefer to find articles written by the professor I plan on interviewing, so that I may directly relate the responses from the interview to the pieces he has written. By directly communicating with a member of the marine biology community, and discussing his works, I am applying the information I learned within the course to the answering of the course outcomes. Throughout this chapter, Bazerman states numerous times about the importance of specifying and identifying the genre of texts being analyzed, especially if the person doing the analyzing is looking for a particular genre. The loose definition of genre, that is, a repeating, recognizable pattern across texts, allows for those doing the rhetorical analysis to be as broad or vague as they desire. Bazerman does state, however, that the best forms of analysis are often as focused as possible, with a clear question that can be answered by looking into the desired texts. Typification, according to Bazerman on page 316, is the process of creating standardized forms of text that are meant for specific circumstances and understanding of particular situations. This boils down to having a format for writing in a genre. For example, a research paper and an article that summarizes the paper’s findings have very different formats, sections, and language, yet both cover (hopefully) the exact same subject.
For the first major assignment, I am interested in how an individual may take a paper, such as a research paper meant for a specific field of science, and make it accessible for a different audience while still including as much information as possible to get its original message across. Accessible can have several different meanings, such as entertaining, easy to read, or to pique the audience’s interest to read more on the subject, or the original work. Additionally, this accessibility may be across other fields or studies within a particular field. This goes back to the three-leveled speech analysis of the text, in which a reader or audience may not understand what the text is trying to communicate and misinterpret it, while a different audience may be more attuned to the word-choice or layout of the text. In my study, I would prefer to focus on articles that were written on specific research studies or topics, that also site back to the original article or articles. I would prefer to analyze articles and papers that are focused on marine biology, or biology in general, with a practical use or reason to be brought across genres of writing. The interview would either be with a professor who has written papers in their field, and had papers or articles reference back to their works, or with the authors of journal articles who had done research on a research paper. Preferably the interview would be in person, as to get the most direct and animated response, but questions over email would allow the individual to refine their thoughts before speaking them. However, I am concerned about how to go about the interview, in terms of what questions I could ask that would best answer my original question. |
Details
AuthorZachary Wagner Archives |