I found many new concepts presented when reading Charles Bazerman's "Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems: How Texts Organize Activity and People." The first of these new ideas was “speech acts” which he defined as “social acts accomplished through language.” In considering this concept, I realized I had certainly experienced and even used these in my own use of language but had never heard them described this way before. Another new idea was Bazerman’s use and definition of the term genre, which he describes as “patterned, typical, and therefore intelligible textual forms.” This definition was very different from how I have been taught to think about “genres” which is more as artistic or literary styles. I could see value in Bazerman’s perspective that “understanding genres and how they work…can help you as a writer fulfill the needs of the situation.” I believe that this will be particularly important to remember as I approach the Preliminary Analysis assignment and focus on the genre system of scientific journals.
Based on my interest in marine science and my direct experience working as an intern at the New England Aquarium during the last 18 months, I am interested in investigating the activity system of the aquarist community. I see an opportunity to use this assignment to better understand how the activity system works among aquarist peers focused on accomplishing a common goal through the exchange of knowledge and information in their writing. I intend to leverage the relationships I have built there to include 1-on-1 interviews with the aquarists as well as to read journal articles or scientific papers that they have collaborated on to better understand their discourse communities, the language they use and any challenges they may have faced in communicating their work. Specifically, I will be interested in learning more about how particular genres have helped form the ideas within their discourse community. Some of the specific questions that I will plan to consider in my analysis and interviews that were referenced in Bazerman’s article include the following:
2 Comments
Author Alan Gross uses Chapter One of his article “The Limits of the Rhetorical Analysis of Science” to explore the use of rhetorical canons, stases and appeals in scientific writing. The author uses case studies to explore the limitations of rhetorical analysis when writing for science and shares his perspective that the facts and theories of science reach beyond the ability to be argued, and as a result can go beyond rhetorical analysis as well. He also describes how scientific writing can be an example of deliberative rhetoric and how while the science can go beyond argument it may still have implications to policy.
As a way to better understand "the ways in which rhetorical processes constitute science", I chose to review a journal article focused on ocean acidification, an important topic that is part of my major in Marine Biology. The article “Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming” was published in Global Change Biology in June 2013. In the article, the authors rely heavily on the use of the rhetorical appeal of logos by appealing to the logic of the reader and seeking to persuade through reason. They do this by providing evidence of many previous studies that have proven the same theory that they are writing about. An example of this can be found in the following quote: “Here, we test the robustness of previous conclusions regarding the sensitivity of various taxonomic groups to ocean acidification to an additional 155 studies (representing approximately 100 new species that were not included in the previous meta-analysis (Kroeker et al., 2010), which had 79 species).” My analysis of this article showed that in addition to using logos appeal, the authors also employ three of the four rhetorical stases including 1) the facts as evidenced by this and previous studies, 2) defining the issue by describing the nature of the impact of ocean acidification, and 3) the seriousness of the issue. An example of this can be seen in the following quote: “Ocean acidification is projected to impact all areas of the ocean, from the deep sea to coastal estuaries (Orr et al., 2005; Feely et al., 2009, 2010), with potentially wide-ranging impacts on marine life (Doney et al., 2009). There is an intense interest in understanding how the projected changes in carbonate chemistry will affect marine species, communities, and ecosystems (Logan, 2010; Gattuso & Hansson, 2011a).” The one stases that the writers do not address is related to policy as they are mostly silent on this issue and do not use the journal article to define a clear plan of action. In doing this assignment, I thought about what role context would play in shaping the rhetorical act of the journal article. I believe that given the nature of the topic and the level of detail provided, it may be difficult for a lay person to truly understand the impact of the findings and it would be especially difficult for them to translate the findings into action without the context of a scientific background or making a lot of assumptions. Minor Assignment 2: Jack Selzer's "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers"1/31/2018 I found the assigned reading from Jack Selzer's "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers" to be quite interesting. Having taken a Rhetoric class as part of my online high school curriculum, I am familiar with the topic of rhetorical analysis, but Selzer's descriptions and the examples of analysis he had done deepened that understanding for me. I agree with Selzer that for most people rhetoric has a negative connotation. Saying that someone is speaking in rhetoric generally means that they are deceitful or somehow trying to hide the truth. I learned through my previous study of rhetoric that this is not the only meaning. As Selzer suggests, rhetoric is "not only a means of producing effective communication but also a way of understanding communication." Doing a rhetorical analysis can help us to better understand a writer's intent to persuade, convince or influence an audience through word selection, tone, and purpose. Some critical questions to consider when analyzing a piece of writing are: What is the goal of the writer's article? Is it a persuasive argument? Does the writer establish credibility and seem trustworthy? And what emotional aspects does the writer use to be more influential?
For my rhetorical analysis, I chose an article that was assigned reading for my Introduction to Sustainability course. The article, "Nature isn't a commodity that should be bought, sold and traded" was written by Dr. Kate Rawles and published in The Ecologist in May 2011. Right from the title, the author seeks to be very clear in her purpose. She makes a bold statement in saying what she feels nature isn't to make a case for what she believes it to be. She applies rhetorical device of ethos in building her own credibility by balancing her argument against environmental ethicist Aldo Leopold in saying "We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect." Further, Rawles employs the rhetorical device of logos in basing her argument in facts and statistics to prove the magnitude of the problem she's writing about when she states, "Marine biodiversity is key and often overlooked. Seven-tenths of planet earth is ocean, and 99 percent of the space available for life is in the sea. If all life on earth were wiped out, marine life would continue: but not vice versa. And all is far from well in the sea." She also uses this previous statement to employ the pathos device by almost imperceptibly weaving in illustrative language that ties to the emotions and values of her audience. The most striking example of rhetoric that the author uses is the device of ethos. Through her writing style, she demonstrates a confidence in delivery that could be repellent to some audiences and could leave them with a need for more evidence-based or emotionally-based language to be entirely convinced of her argument. I can see that this could be particularly true of an audience that may already have their own perspectives on this topic. I would be very interested in whether or not my peers see the same through their own reading and analysis of the article. |
AuthorHi! I am Collin Barker and I am a Marine Biology Major at Roger Williams University, an avid reader and fish keeper. To learn more about me check out my About page. Archives
May 2018
Categories |