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.
2 Comments
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. The article, “Vertical and horizontal movement patterns of scyphozoan jellyfish in a fjord-like estuary”, is a research paper studying the swimming patterns of two different species of jellyfish, the lion’s mane jellyfish, and the fried-egg jellyfish, located in Puget Sound, Washington. The tracking was done using acoustic transmitters attached to the jellies, which relay a signal after a set amount of time has passed back to a computer, which logs the distance. It was found that the lion’s mane jellies swam faster during the night, while fried egg jellies swam faster during the day. Both stayed below the pycnocline for a majority of the time, with the lion’s manes coming to the surface at night, with the fried egg jellies having no difference between day and night cycles.
The article has several purposes, while attempting to answer one question. Using visual and numerical data, the researchers sought out if there was a pattern in the movements of various jellies, as well as test the value in using acoustic transmitters in tracking organisms long-term, underwater, at various depths (some greater than 100 meters). The article relies greatly on logos to support the findings of the study, but also uses the idea of stasis, as very few studies have been done on jellies despite their plentiful numbers and high ecological impact. The context of the article, being published on May 30, 2012, was that this kind of study had never been done before. Very few people, within and outside of the Marine Biology community, care for jellies, and instead shift focus to marine mammals and fishes. The role of jellies as predators and prey species within the ecosystem, as well as their endurance in hypoxic waters, add to the ethos of the article, that these organisms are important, and worth studying in future studies. As more areas of the ocean become hypoxic, the jellies may be able to out compete fish and crustaceans, and further study can help in understanding the potential impact of large-scale jellyfish blooms. The discussion section adds more to these ideas of future study, such as more uses for acoustic tracking, as well as the potential flaws with the experiment, which is especially useful for establishing credibility, for no experiment is perfect in design or execution. Overall, as a scientific article, the paper is effective in delivering its findings and the importance of them. Source: http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m455p001.pdf |
Details
AuthorZachary Wagner Archives |