In scientific and technical discourse, there are many concepts which are introduced in Scientific American article, “The green apple”, by David Biello. This article was published on June 16, 2010 which is very recently. Over past few years, the scientific issue of global warming is important. This article talks about the problems that we will face in future due to climate change and how some major cities in the U.S. and couple of countries are trying to reduce the harmful effects using different solutions. Some of the solutions are having green roofs on buildings, installing flood doors, cleaning water and encouraging people to use natural gas rather than coal to “reduce emissions of CO2. Some more solutions that New York City has adapted is having hybrid taxis and planting more trees. It also says that along with New York, many other cities and countries are making efforts to reduce the energy use and to save the environment. Indirectly, people are encouraged to use alternate options for energy saving.
Alan Gross talks about contingent which means something that is may or may not certain, just a possibility or something that’s unpredictable according to Webster’s dictionary. In this science journal article, I have noticed the use of the word “predicted” many times. For example, “co-chaired by NASA climate modeler Cynthia Rozenweig predicts a 5 to 10 percent increase in the mean precipitation around New York City by 2080”. Cynthia Rosenzweig is a senior research scientist in NASA and also head of the climate impact group. She was told to advise New York City on adaptations for its critical infrastructure where also she is also part of the committee. This article is not fully scientific but it is justified as acting “scientific”. First, it is published in a science journal in Scientific American. Second, there are lots of different responses from people, which is very reputed scientific source and by City department’s directors like Adam Freed, who is one of certified long term planner. Third, it provides statistics which are not accurate but an average. All of these facts make me think that this article is not truly scientific but it is just acting to be scientific. On the contrary, upon looking at this article, it has the scientific arrangement because the beginning is an introduction, then there is a discussion and at last there are results, which seem like a typical science arrangement.
There are many theories of scientific arrangement which are demonstrated in the article. According to Gross, the theory of Deduction is used well in this article. This article begins by talking about New York flash flooding and then to climate changes. It gives a smooth transition between the cities which are putting effort and finally to specific efforts that have been made and will be making in future. So from very general background, David talks about specific solutions that have been found out. That’s why; I think it’s more like Gross’s deductive theory which can be simply said as descending “from causes to invention of new experiments”. Also in deductive theory, many things are not certain, similarly, in this text, many data are predictions.
Although Marie Secor and Jeanne Fahnestock talks about audience construction being challenging. I think in the higher stases, where the question of value and question of procedure arise, “the audience already aware of the value of addressing a subject in a particular stasis”. The writer already assumes the reader already holding a position with his/her individual values which has derived from his/her experiences. Without lower stasis, higher stasis can’t exist on its own. Similarly, without the fact that our planet is facing all these challenges, the value and procedure, policy can’t be answered.
The concept of Baconian Induction is also used well in the text. Baconian induction is a method of science which moves from contingency to natural necessity. This article begins with causes that are possible and unpredictable due to climate change but ends with solutions that can make the situation better, which in this case are the efforts to reduce energy use.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Audience and genre
Upon reading this letter, I have come to understand that this letter was written by a group of people in U.S. to President William J. Clinton regarding Iraq. In this letter, writers are trying to persuade president to take action to remove Saddam Hussein from his power and to stop him from producing more weapons of mass destruction that can attack against the U.S. The writers are also telling President Clinton to go against United Nations (UN) and change American foreign policy. Audience and genre play a big role in persuasion. The type of genre can create a different reaction to the intended audience.
In this letter, Clinton is the intended audience but since this letter was read in public, its implied audience is U.S. citizens. The real audience isn’t always the same as imagined audience. I think the purpose of the letter is to persuade him to take action against Iraq. To me, all the genres are intertwined and that’s why as the role of audience changes, the reaction of the reader also changes.
If this letter could be rewritten, a T.V. interview with letter writer(s) or a magazine editorial can be an effective way to persuade the audience of the discourse. Only this time, the audience will be bigger, broader, of different ages, and of different levels of knowledge. It can be difficult to persuade the audience; however, making this a public issue can strengthen communication or the relationship between the writer and the reader (encoder to decoder). Since this is a national issue, it’s easier to involve the “real audience” (in this case, U.S. citizens) to see the reaction to it. A T.V. interview can be excellent because even if the reader/hearer is not physically present, it gives them a chance to play a role to be a part of the news; as Ong describes how Stern gives chance to his readers instead of making a frame story like Chaucer, where a reader is a part of a nonexistent group.
The major shift of form from formal letter to an ordinary T.V. interview has an advantage that all the citizens of America will be listening/watching it and will be able to decide their opinion. Although there is a challenge, that the audience may not want to be a part of the discourse. In any successful piece of discourse, a writer and a reader must play an assigned role.
In order to persuade U.S. citizens of this issue and to take an action, I think the form can be informal. Also most Americans don’t know of the affairs of Middle East, it’s important to let the public know of them through a map that shows the U.S. alliances with different countries in the world. U.S. has special alliance with Israel and Palestine. When UN tried to conduct an inspection in Iraq of the mass destruction weapons, Iraq was not as cooperative and the report of UN inspection in Iraq claims that Iraq seemed to hide the weapons. Later, the inspection was blocked. In addition, Iraq also has a history of using the biological weapons previously against Kurdistan and Iraq-Iran War. There was no evidence of that time that Iraq has no more of weapons. The audience needs to be informed about the possible threat of an attack from Iraq. In this situation, most American would feel threatened and their feelings against Iraq could persuade them to agree with American action. The reason I want to say “feelings against Iraq” is because the stereotype about Muslim nations being destructive. I think when Americans will understand the destabilization; they will probably support the nation’s decision. Any action against Iraq can destabilize the American life style due to import of oil.
In the letter, writer(s) have said it directly that the strategies for removing Saddam Hussein from power, “Will require a full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts.” And that they are the supporters of this policy related issue. These small terms like “our interest” or “our nation” impact a reader’s mind and can be an advantage to persuade the reader/hearer because most people think that they are good patriots.
In this letter, Clinton is the intended audience but since this letter was read in public, its implied audience is U.S. citizens. The real audience isn’t always the same as imagined audience. I think the purpose of the letter is to persuade him to take action against Iraq. To me, all the genres are intertwined and that’s why as the role of audience changes, the reaction of the reader also changes.
If this letter could be rewritten, a T.V. interview with letter writer(s) or a magazine editorial can be an effective way to persuade the audience of the discourse. Only this time, the audience will be bigger, broader, of different ages, and of different levels of knowledge. It can be difficult to persuade the audience; however, making this a public issue can strengthen communication or the relationship between the writer and the reader (encoder to decoder). Since this is a national issue, it’s easier to involve the “real audience” (in this case, U.S. citizens) to see the reaction to it. A T.V. interview can be excellent because even if the reader/hearer is not physically present, it gives them a chance to play a role to be a part of the news; as Ong describes how Stern gives chance to his readers instead of making a frame story like Chaucer, where a reader is a part of a nonexistent group.
The major shift of form from formal letter to an ordinary T.V. interview has an advantage that all the citizens of America will be listening/watching it and will be able to decide their opinion. Although there is a challenge, that the audience may not want to be a part of the discourse. In any successful piece of discourse, a writer and a reader must play an assigned role.
In order to persuade U.S. citizens of this issue and to take an action, I think the form can be informal. Also most Americans don’t know of the affairs of Middle East, it’s important to let the public know of them through a map that shows the U.S. alliances with different countries in the world. U.S. has special alliance with Israel and Palestine. When UN tried to conduct an inspection in Iraq of the mass destruction weapons, Iraq was not as cooperative and the report of UN inspection in Iraq claims that Iraq seemed to hide the weapons. Later, the inspection was blocked. In addition, Iraq also has a history of using the biological weapons previously against Kurdistan and Iraq-Iran War. There was no evidence of that time that Iraq has no more of weapons. The audience needs to be informed about the possible threat of an attack from Iraq. In this situation, most American would feel threatened and their feelings against Iraq could persuade them to agree with American action. The reason I want to say “feelings against Iraq” is because the stereotype about Muslim nations being destructive. I think when Americans will understand the destabilization; they will probably support the nation’s decision. Any action against Iraq can destabilize the American life style due to import of oil.
In the letter, writer(s) have said it directly that the strategies for removing Saddam Hussein from power, “Will require a full complement of diplomatic, political, and military efforts.” And that they are the supporters of this policy related issue. These small terms like “our interest” or “our nation” impact a reader’s mind and can be an advantage to persuade the reader/hearer because most people think that they are good patriots.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Rhetorical analysis of Michael's essay
By reading Michael Lemonick’s essay, “Honesty is Always the Best Policy”, which has been published in May 2010 in Onearth magazine, I have felt that there is so much information about his background. Michael is currently a professor of Science-Journalism at Princeton University. He is known for his publication of global warming essay in a Time magazine. Michael has claimed that the aim of this essay is only to report the truth to the readers rather than to up the publication.
Michael Lemonick tells the readers so much about this background on science that any reader would have an impression of him being intelligent. He tells that his father was a physicist, who studies the behavior of the materials in the universe. Also he talks about an event when he was working in the Time magazine and the group of climate scientists came to the editorial staff and how he liked the story of the global warming. Where Michael had worked in the past was Science Digest magazine, which is known for science related articles targeted at people with high school level education. Michel had been really unhappy with the changes in journalism since journalism was changing toward sensational journalism. Science Digest had later changed its’ targeted audience to college students.
However Michael says that the purpose of this essay is that it lets him make a short lesson on science. He claims that it is not an attempt to sell any one idea but to report the truth the best possible. I, as a college student, liked this essay and how he’s being honest. Actually, his morals are seen in the end. I didn’t feel as if he was making any kind of argument with anybody, but I think it’s an epideictic type of discourse. He has tried his best to stay biased on anything.
On the other side, I also think that contextual approach is better on this essay since the author gives lots of background and gave reference to people and his experience with the climate scientists. The effective strategy he has invented to capture the audience into reading is by being honest and being none to less formal and that’s why the title is also so relevant to the essay. In these days, media is having great competition with other sources, so there is a heavy need for the young audience to read this publication. Michael thought as his audiences are youngsters but I felt that the ‘real audience’ to the essay is anyone of any age. The contextual approach does matter to me and to other readers since our reading and writings in this class or in public place; it is going to shape our views on different issue. Not necessarily, a person in the beginning of reading is same at the end.
Michael Lemonick tells the readers so much about this background on science that any reader would have an impression of him being intelligent. He tells that his father was a physicist, who studies the behavior of the materials in the universe. Also he talks about an event when he was working in the Time magazine and the group of climate scientists came to the editorial staff and how he liked the story of the global warming. Where Michael had worked in the past was Science Digest magazine, which is known for science related articles targeted at people with high school level education. Michel had been really unhappy with the changes in journalism since journalism was changing toward sensational journalism. Science Digest had later changed its’ targeted audience to college students.
However Michael says that the purpose of this essay is that it lets him make a short lesson on science. He claims that it is not an attempt to sell any one idea but to report the truth the best possible. I, as a college student, liked this essay and how he’s being honest. Actually, his morals are seen in the end. I didn’t feel as if he was making any kind of argument with anybody, but I think it’s an epideictic type of discourse. He has tried his best to stay biased on anything.
On the other side, I also think that contextual approach is better on this essay since the author gives lots of background and gave reference to people and his experience with the climate scientists. The effective strategy he has invented to capture the audience into reading is by being honest and being none to less formal and that’s why the title is also so relevant to the essay. In these days, media is having great competition with other sources, so there is a heavy need for the young audience to read this publication. Michael thought as his audiences are youngsters but I felt that the ‘real audience’ to the essay is anyone of any age. The contextual approach does matter to me and to other readers since our reading and writings in this class or in public place; it is going to shape our views on different issue. Not necessarily, a person in the beginning of reading is same at the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)