Minor Assignment 32/4/2018 When searching for a journal article to study, I wanted something that I already had previous knowledge on, so I could focus strictly on the rhetoric of the piece. I decided on a paper concerning the swimming dynamics of lampreys, given that is what I currently work on as a research student at Roger Williams. As I looked at “How the bending of kinematics of swimming lampreys build negative pressure fields for suction thrust” by Gemmel and colleagues, I began to appreciate more the rhetorical techniques that Gemmels uses throughout the paper. His use of rhetoric most closely follows rhetorical cannons. The rhetorical cannons are comprised of five pieces: invention, arrangement, memory, delivery, and style.
When applying these to the journal article, invention is the first to arise. Invention, or in other words the process of the work, is first introduced in the materials and methods sections. In this section Gemmel goes into great detail to explain exactly how the process of video analyzing the kinematics of swimming lamprey is done and what exactly can be derived from such work. He also takes the time to explain how lampreys actually swim; by creating negative pressure fields in front and along the sides of their bodies that they are sucked into, instead of the typical backwards thrust that other aquatic animals use. He goes on to add, in detail, exactly how they quantify any data reported, allowing the reader to follow the thought process through the paper. Arrangement and memory, the second and third cannons, can be seen all throughout the paper. Gemmel applies arrangement by following the standard set up for any scientific research paper. Leading with an abstract, then an introduction, materials and methods, and so on. He does however also use quite a few subcategories that help the reader if they need to jump to a specific part of the paper. When discussing a writer’s use of “memory,” it often means the grounding of their work in other sources and supplying the reader with some context outside of their own work. Gemmel is no different when it comes to this canon. He cites a total of fifty-five other published papers throughout his piece, sufficiently grounding his work and giving it credibility through its connection to these previously published authors/papers. The final two cannons, delivery and style, work very well when used together. Delivery is the way in which a paper is designed or presented; with style focusing more on the demeanor and tone. Gemmel uses these well together by not only creating a very visually appealing paper through his use of graphs, charts, and depictions, but also by keeping a very informative and interested tone throughout his paper. The graphics helped to guide the reader through some of the more difficult jargon by supplying them with a visual representation of what is being discussed. His interested tone also helped the paper significantly because it is always easier to get into a topic when the writer shows such compassion for it. Gemmel, whether he meant to or not, developed and used the five rhetorical cannons all throughout his article. He built a paper that was not only interesting to read, but also immensely informational, without being too overbearing on the reader.
4 Comments
Minor Assignment 21/31/2018 The Assignment sheet I decided to analyze was for a final research paper in my Marine Vertebrate Zoology Lab during the fall 2017 semester. The assignment sheet begins by over-viewing what the paper will be about and introduces the way in which the project should be approached and done. It gives a very clear procedure that walks the students through the order in which steps of the project should be done, so as to be approachable and easy to understand. Clear deadlines are also given so that there is no question in when the proposal, presentation, or paper will be due. There is some generalization done at some points with the assumption that the students either already know what is supposed to be done, or that it is easy enough to figure out. Given that each student, or pair of students, was given a slightly different project, this generalization helped to keep the assignment sheet short, without focusing too much on one specific project over another. The tone of the assignment as well is a very commanding one, with many sentences beginning with “You will...” with the only option being whether the students want to work alone or in pairs. A clear tone like this helps take away any questioning, and give the students more direction. Something I found interesting about this document, or assignment in general, was the requirement to write according to the “standard” for scientific literature. This spot in the assignment in particular is where I found the assignment most closely connecting to the scientific discourse within the Maine Biology community. The requirement to “include all standard sections: abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and references” is clearly trying to teach us how to write for the specific community of our major. Almost all papers that I have read within the field of marine biology have included these sections, because that is not what the discourse community expects to see when they pick up a paper, and we are being taught the write the exact same way starting early in our careers. Given that this way of writing has been, and will continue to be, taught to college students across the discourse community it appears that it will be around to stay for some time to come, whether it is the best way to convey ideas or not.
Minor Assignment 11/28/2018 As Montgomery details what kind of writing scientific writing is, he begins by stating how it is engaged in rhetoric, with the intent to persuade people.
“Scientific writing is also engaged in rhetoric- it aims not just to tell but to persuade. It wants to convince us that the result not only has meaning but is meaningful” – Montgomery (9) He goes on to use the term “rhetoric” a couple more times in the first two chapters of “The Chicago Guide to Communicating Science,” all with the same context, of being used to persuade someone on a topic. Through this repetitive use, it can be assumed that by “rhetoric,” Montgomery means to write in such a way as to convey an idea. He put significant emphasis on this idea, because he believes that writing in a rhetorical way is required within the sciences so that any reader who approaches the work, even one with no scientific background, would be able to understand and accept what the writer is trying to prove. Personally, within the scope of scientific literature, I think that writing with rhetoric in mind is a crucial part of any successful paper. In my mind, rhetorically engaged papers are significantly better for a couple different reasons. Firstly, many people run into issues by scientific papers burning them out. These papers can be dense, with a lot of tough ideas and language to wade through, leading people to putting them down before making it to the end. When papers are written with rhetoric in mind, this sense of being bogged down can be lessened by rhetoric adding a sense of conversation to the paper. Having somebody try to convince you of something helps to keep interest in a piece elevated, and thus helps to finish an entire paper. Secondly, it helps to show the writer’s passion for the subject matter throughout the paper, and when someone is passionate about something it can help draw other people into the subject and get them interested. Rhetoric is a crucial aspect of many different fields of writing, but especially in the sciences, just for these reasons. The sciences can be a daunting subject for many people to get involved in, but giving them a sense of conversation can help get past those initial worries. However, there’s another side to every story. It can also be important to examine science through a rhetorical lens, so that you are able to tell when someone is trying to persuade you on a topic. While many writers use rhetoric to make their papers more appealing, there is always a chance that what they are trying to convince you on is wrong. Examining papers with a rhetorical eye can help to identify these moments and allow you to look deeper into the topic to ensure you learn the truth. AuthorSophomore Marine Biology Major, Roger Williams University Archives
April 2018
CategoriesAbout
The purpose of these blogs were to serve as a mode to turn in minor assignments for my Professional Writing Class. Many are responses to reading we did, and a couple are first drafts of various major assignments. |